Baker

LLM response

Here are the responses for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items based on the full text:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.
- "Gastrostomy tubes are typically well tolerated and provide improved quality of life compared to parenteral and nasogastric feeding for patients unable to maintain adequate oral nutrition [1]."
- "There is currently no consensus as to the optimal technique of gastrostomy insertion in the pediatric population, and there remains a paucity of well-designed trials to answer the question."
- [No] - The review did not mention a protocol or pre-determined research objectives. 

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.  
- "Screening of eligible studies, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were conducted independently by two reviewers."
- [Yes] Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). 
- The search included multiple databases: "MEDLINE (PubMed, PubMEd in Process and Ovid), EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus and Cochrane Library."
- Databases were searched from 1993 to 2013. 
- [Yes] Multiple databases were searched and search details are reported.

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. 
- [NA] The inclusion criteria did not consider publication status and the search and inclusion was restricted to published studies only.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.
- Table 1 provides a detailed list of included studies.
- The screening process is shown in a flow diagram (Fig. 1), but specific excluded studies are not listed.
- [Yes] Included studies are listed and the screening process is depicted.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes.  
- Table 1 provides relevant characteristics of the included studies - interventions compared and outcome data.
- Additional details on patient demographics and complications are provided in the results section.
- [Yes] Relevant characteristics of included studies are provided.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.
- "The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was utilized to determine the quality of studies and risk of bias [6]."
- MINORS scores for each study are reported in Table 1.
- [Yes] The MINORS tool was used to assess quality of included studies. 

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.
- The limitations of including primarily retrospective studies is acknowledged in the discussion.
- [Yes] The quality of studies is considered appropriately in the conclusions.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).
- Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software. 
- Heterogeneity was assessed and reported low in the analyses.  
- [Yes] Appropriate meta-analytic methods were used.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).
- Funnel plot was generated for one comparison and showed no significant asymmetry (Fig. 5).
- [Yes] Publication bias was assessed for one comparison.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.
- No statement on conflict of interest or funding sources for the included studies.
- No statement on conflict of interest or funding for the review itself.
- [No] Conflict of interest was not reported.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 
- The title identifies the study as a "systematic review and meta-analysis."
- [Yes]

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- The abstract provides relevant background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal methods, results, and conclusions.
- No systematic review registration number is provided.
- [Yes] Structured abstract is provided covering key information.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- The introduction summarizes prior relevant literature and places the review in the context of uncertainty regarding optimal gastrostomy techniques.
- [Yes]

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- The objective is clearly specified: "This report evaluates the available literature summarizing complication rates and resource utilization for gastrostomy techniques in children."
- Inclusion criteria detail eligible participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.
- [Yes] 

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- No protocol is mentioned.
- No registration information is provided. 
- [No]

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- The inclusion and exclusion criteria section provides details on eligible participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study designs.
- Rationale is provided for inclusion and exclusion criteria.
- [Yes]

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. 
- The search strategy section lists all databases searched and date ranges. The search was conducted on May 17, 2013.
- The full search strategy is provided in the appendix.
- [Yes]

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- The full search strategy for Ovid MEDLINE is provided in the appendix.
- [Yes] 

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- The study selection process, including screening, is described in the methods and depicted in Fig. 1.
- [Yes]

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.  
- "Data extraction was conducted by 2 reviewers (LB & AB) using a predefined data extraction worksheet."
- No additional confirmation from study investigators is mentioned.
- [Yes] 

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Variables extracted are stated to include: title, authors, number of centers, location, demographics, interventions, outcomes, and findings.  
- [Yes]

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- The MINORS tool was used to assess quality and risk of bias in included studies. This information was considered in the interpretation of results.
- [Yes] 

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- "Major complications were defined as reoperation within 1 year or death. Secondary outcomes included: other reported complications and a comparison of resource utilization between the techniques (including operative time and cost)."
- Odds ratios were the summary measures used in the meta-analyses.
- [Yes]

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. 
- Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Fixed and random effects models were used as appropriate. 
- Heterogeneity was assessed by I2.
- [Yes]

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Funnel plot was examined for evidence of publication bias in one comparison.
- Limitations due to retrospective study designs are discussed.
- [Yes]

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- No additional analyses are mentioned.
- [NA] No additional analyses were performed.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- The number of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included is reported.
- A flow diagram depicts the screening process and exclusions.
- [Yes] 

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. 
- Table 1 presents relevant characteristics (sample size, interventions, outcomes, MINORS score) for each included study.
- Full citations are provided.
- [Yes]

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- The MINORS score assessing risk of bias is presented for each study in Table 1.
- [Yes]

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- For the primary outcome, the number of events and participants are summarized for each study in Table 1. 
- Effect estimates and confidence intervals are displayed in forest plots.
- [Yes]

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Results of each meta-analysis are presented with confidence intervals and measures of heterogeneity (I2) in the forest plots.
- [Yes] 

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- The funnel plot is presented assessing publication bias in one comparison. 
- [Yes]

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- No additional analyses were performed.
- [NA]

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- The discussion summarizes the main findings on complication rates for each comparison and discusses relevance to choice of gastrostomy technique.
- The strength of evidence is acknowledged to be limited by lack of RCTs.  
- [Yes]

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Limitations due to lack of RCTs, retrospective study design, heterogeneity, and potential publication bias are discussed.
- [Yes]

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Results are interpreted in the context of previous studies.
- Implications for practice and need for further RCT evidence are discussed.
- [Yes]

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- No sources of funding or support are reported.
- The role of funders is not described.
- [No] Funding sources and role of funders are not reported.

In summary, for the AMSTAR items:
A1, A4, A5, A9, A10, A11 are No; 
A2, A3, A6, A7, A8 are Yes.

For the PRISMA items: 
P5, P15, P16, P23, P27 are No or NA;
P1-P4, P6-P14, P17-P22, P24-P26 are Yes.

Ross

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the given systematic review:

# AMSTAR

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
- "We performed a systematic review of the existing literature." (Abstract)
- Mentions performing a systematic review, but does not mention a protocol.
[No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- "The literature search, assessment for inclusion and data extraction were performed independently by three reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus." (Methods)  
- Three independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction.
[Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- "We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane controlled trials register from inception to July 2014 using the terms ‘gastroschisis’, ‘gastroschisis and silo’, ‘preformed silo’ and ‘silastic silo’." (Methods)
- Searched multiple databases without date restrictions.
[Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?
- No mention of including or excluding based on publication status.
[No] 

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Figure 1 shows a flow diagram depicting included and excluded studies.
[Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Table 1 provides key characteristics of the included studies.
[Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- No mention of formal quality assessment for included studies.
[No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?  
- Did not assess quality of included studies.
[NA]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
- Used random effects model and assessed heterogeneity with I2 statistic.
[Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- No assessment of publication bias mentioned.
[No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?  
- No statement about conflicts of interest.
[No]

# PRISMA

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- "This systematic review aimed to determine comparative outcomes for infants with gastroschisis treated with either a PFS or alternate treatment strategy." (Discussion)
[Yes]

P2. Provide a structured summary including key elements.
- Provides a structured abstract with background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal, synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
[Yes]

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Introduction provides context about current knowledge and controversies around optimal management of gastroschisis.
[Yes] 

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed.
- Clear objective provided: "to evaluate current evidence comparing the use of a PFS with alternate treatment strategies in infants with gastroschisis." (Abstract)
[Yes]

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists and provide registration information.
- No mention of a review protocol.
[No]

P6. Specify study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility. 
- Details inclusion and exclusion criteria. (Methods)
[Yes]

P7. Describe all information sources in the search and date last searched.
- Lists databases searched from inception to July 2014. (Methods)
[Yes]

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
- Does not provide full search strategy.
[No]

P9. State the process for selecting studies.
- Describes study selection process and screening by abstract and full text. (Methods, Figure 1)
[Yes]

P10. Describe method of data extraction and confirmation.
- "Data were extracted and entered into Review Manager (v5.1, The Cochrane Collaboration)" (Methods)
- Does not describe if extraction was done in duplicate.
[No]

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought.
- Specifies outcomes extracted. (Methods) 
[Yes]

P12. Describe methods for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
- Does not describe a risk of bias assessment.
[No]

P13. State the principal summary measures.
- Specifies that mean difference and risk difference were used. (Methods)
[Yes]

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results.
- Describes the use of a random effects model and assessment of heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. (Methods)
[Yes]

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- No assessment of publication bias or other biases across studies.
[No] 

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses.
- Mentions pre-planned subgroup analysis. (Methods)
[Yes]

P17. Give numbers of studies at each stage of screening and selection, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Figure 1 shows the flow of studies with numbers at each stage.
[Yes]

P18. For each study, present key characteristics. 
- Table 1 presents key characteristics of included studies.
[Yes]

P19. Present data on risk of bias for each study.
- Does not present risk of bias results.
[No]

P20. For each outcome, present summary data and effect estimates for each study.
- Presents forest plots with summary data and effect estimates. (Results, Figures 2-4)  
[Yes]

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. 
- Presents results of meta-analyses with confidence intervals and I2 values. (Results, Figures 2-4)
[Yes]

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Did not assess risk of bias across studies.
[No]

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done.
- Presents results of subgroup analysis. (Results)
[Yes] 

P24. Summarize the main findings and discuss relevance.
- Summarizes main findings and discusses relevance to clinical practice in the Discussion.
[Yes]

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level and at review level.
- Discusses limitations at the review level in the Discussion.
[No]

P26. Provide a general interpretation of results in the context of other evidence.
- Interprets findings in the context of other evidence. (Discussion)
[Yes]

P27. Describe sources of funding and support for the review.
- No statement about sources of funding or support.
[No]

Allin

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
"[No] The research question and inclusion criteria are not established before the conduct of the review." The protocol was registered after completion of the review.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?  
"[Yes] Two investigators independently performed study selection and data extraction."

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
"[Yes] Multiple databases were searched, including Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane library, and Google scholar. Reference lists were hand searched. No language or geographical restrictions."   

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?
"[Yes] No restrictions were made based on publication status, language etc."

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
"[Yes] A flow diagram showing included and excluded studies is provided in Fig. 1."

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
"[Yes] Study characteristics are provided in Table 2." 

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
"[No] The methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies were not formally assessed."

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
"[NA] The quality of studies was not assessed."

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?  
"[Yes] Fixed effect meta-analysis was used as no statistical heterogeneity was detected. Heterogeneity was assessed with the chi-squared test."

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
"[No] Publication bias was not assessed."

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
"[No] Conflicts of interest for the included studies are not reported."

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
"[Yes] The report is identified as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title."

P2. Provide a structured summary.
"[Yes] A structured abstract is provided summarizing background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal, results, limitations, and conclusions."

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.  
"[Yes] The introduction provides context about the lack of consensus on optimal management of gastroschisis and the rationale for the review."

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
"[Yes] The participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes of interest are described in the methods." 

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists and provide registration information. 
"[Yes] The protocol was registered on PROSPERO and the registration number is provided."

P6. Specify study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility. 
"[Yes] Inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, interventions, and outcomes are specified."

P7. Describe all information sources in the search and date last searched.
"[Yes] Information sources (databases) and search strategy are described. The last date searched is reported." 

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database.
"[No] The full search strategy for databases is not provided."

P9. State the process for selecting studies.
"[Yes] Study selection process, including screening and assessing eligibility, is described." 

P10. Describe method of data extraction and confirmation.
"[Yes] Data extraction was performed independently by two authors, with differences resolved by discussion."

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought.  
"[Yes] Outcomes extracted are listed and defined in the methods section."

P12. Describe methods for assessing risk of bias of individual studies. 
"[No] Methods for assessing risk of bias/methodological quality are not described." 

P13. State the principal summary measures.
"[Yes] Odds ratios, mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals are described as the summary measures."

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results.
"[Yes] Fixed effect meta-analysis was used to pool results. Heterogeneity was assessed with chi-squared test and I2." 

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence.
"[No] Assessment of publication bias was not performed."

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses, if done.
"[NA] No additional analyses were performed."

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included, with reasons for exclusions. 
"[Yes] The number of records identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included are reported in a flow diagram (Fig. 1)."

P18. For each study, present characteristics and provide citations.
"[Yes] Study characteristics are presented in Table 2 along with citations."

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study. 
"[No] Risk of bias for individual studies was not assessed." 

P20. For all outcomes, present data for each study and summary measures.
"[Yes] For primary and secondary outcomes, data from individual studies and pooled estimates are presented in forest plots."

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
"[Yes] Results of the meta-analyses are presented with confidence intervals and I2 values."

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
"[NA] No assessment of publication bias was performed."

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done.
"[NA] No additional analyses were performed."

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
"[Yes] The main findings are summarized in the discussion, along with comments about the quality of evidence."

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level and at review level.
"[Yes] Limitations at the study level (risk of bias) and review level (heterogeneity) are discussed."

P26. Provide a general interpretation of results in the context of other evidence.
"[Yes] The results are interpreted in the context of existing literature."

P27. Describe sources of funding for the review and other support.
"[Yes] Sources of funding are described."

In summary, the review adequately reported the majority of AMSTAR and PRISMA items, with some exceptions:

- AMSTAR: An a priori protocol was not provided, individual study quality/risk of bias was not assessed, publication bias was not assessed, conflicts of interest were not reported.  

- PRISMA: The full search strategy was not provided, methods for assessing risk of bias were not described, assessment of publication bias was not performed.

Overall, this review provides moderate quality evidence on operative fascial closure versus silo repair for gastroschisis due to the observational study designs, heterogeneity, and some deficiencies in reporting. The results suggest some advantages for operative fascial closure but high quality randomized trials are needed.

Hall

LLM response

Here are my assessments for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items based on the provided systematic review text:

A1. "[Yes]"
"The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review."
The objective is clearly stated in the background and methods. 

A2. "[No]"  
"There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place."
Only one reviewer extracted data.

A3. "[Yes]"
"At least two electronic sources should be searched." 
Medline and other sources were searched.

A4. "[No]"
"The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type."
Grey literature was not mentioned.

A5. "[No]" 
"A list of included and excluded studies should be provided."
No list of excluded studies was provided.

A6. "[Yes]"
"In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes."
Table 1 provides data on participants. 

A7. "[No]"
"'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria)."
No quality assessment done.

A8. "[NA]"
"The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review."
Not applicable since no quality assessment done.

A9. "[NA]"  
"For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2)."
Not applicable since no meta-analysis done.

A10. "[No]"
"An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken)."
No assessment of publication bias.

A11. "[No]"
"Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies."
No statement on sources of funding.

P1. "[Yes]" 
"Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both."
Identified as systematic review in title.

P2. "[Yes]"
"Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number."  
Structured abstract provided.

P3. "[Yes]"  
"Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known."
Rationale described in introduction.

P4. "[Yes]"
"Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)."
Objective stated in background.

P5. "[No]"
"Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number."
No protocol mentioned.

P6. "[Yes]" 
"Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale."
Inclusion criteria described in methods.

P7. "[Yes]"
"Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched."
Databases and supplementary strategies described.

P8. "[No]"
"Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated."
Search strategy not provided.

P9. "[Yes]"
"State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)." 
Selection process described.

P10. "[No]" 
"Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators."
No mention of data extraction process.

P11. "[Yes]"
"List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made."
Outcomes described.

P12. "[No]" 
"Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis."
No risk of bias assessment. 

P13. "[NA]"
"State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)."
Not applicable since no meta-analysis.

P14-P16. "[NA]" 
Not applicable since no meta-analysis.

P17. "[No]"
"Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram."
No flow diagram showing screening process.

P18. "[Yes]"
"For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations."
Study characteristics presented in results.

P19. "[No]"
"Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12)."
No risk of bias assessment.

P20-P22. "[NA]" 
Not applicable since no meta-analysis. 

P23. "[NA]"
Not applicable since no additional analyses.

P24. "[Yes]"
"Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)."
Main findings summarized in discussion.

P25. "[Yes]" 
"Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)."
Limitations discussed.

P26. "[Yes]"
"Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research."
Results interpreted and future research implications described.

P27. "[No]"
"Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review."
No statement on sources of funding.

Lee

LLM response

Here are my assessments of the methodological quality using AMSTAR and reporting quality using PRISMA for the given systematic review:

A1. 
"Data were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and citation review."
Stated searching databases. [Yes]

A2. 
No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction. [No] 

A3. 
"PubMed and other databases of the English literature (up to August 2009) were analyzed."
Stated searching PubMed and other databases. [Yes]

A4. 
No mention of searching for grey literature. [No]

A5. 
No list of included or excluded studies provided. [No]

A6. 
Study characteristics summarized in Tables 1 and 2. [Yes] 

A7. 
No quality assessment of included studies mentioned. [No]

A8. 
Not applicable since no quality assessment done. [NA] 

A9. 
No quantitative synthesis done. [NA]

A10. 
No assessment of publication bias mentioned. [No] 

A11. 
No mention of conflicts of interest. [No]

P1. 
"Antibiotics and appendicitis in the pediatric population: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee Systematic Review" [Yes]

P2. 
Provides background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, results and conclusions. No registration number provided. [No] 

P3. 
Provides context and rationale in introduction. [Yes]

P4. 
Provides objectives and PICOS elements. [Yes] 

P5. 
No mention of a review protocol. [No]

P6.  
Describes eligibility criteria. [Yes]

P7.  
States databases searched. [Yes]

P8. 
Does not provide full search strategy. [No]

P9.
Describes study selection process. [Yes] 

P10. 
No description of data extraction process. [No]

P11.
No list of variables extracted. [No] 

P12. 
No assessment of risk of bias mentioned. [NA] 

P13.
Not applicable. [NA]

P14.  
Not applicable. [NA]

P15.  
Not applicable. [NA]

P16.  
Not applicable. [NA] 

P17. 
No flow diagram or details on study selection process. [No]

P18. 
Study characteristics presented in Tables 1 and 2. [Yes]

P19.  
No assessment of risk of bias. [NA]

P20.  
Not applicable. [NA]

P21.  
Not applicable. [NA]

P22.  
Not applicable. [NA]

P23.  
Not applicable. [NA]

P24. 
Summarizes main findings and conclusions. [Yes]

P25. 
No discussion of limitations. [No]

P26. 
Provides interpretation of results. [Yes] 

P27. 
No statement on sources of funding. [No]

Chen

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
[No]
"Our review was limited to published studies and no contact with authors was made to obtain unpublished data. Conference abstracts were also excluded owing to the limited data presented."
No protocol or pre-determined objectives mentioned.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?  
[Yes] 
"Each included study was independently appraised by 3 reviewers (C.Y., S.N., N.K.L.) and data were extracted and entered into a database. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus."

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
[Yes]
"We searched all publications from August 1998 to March 2012 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using different combinations of the following terms: “Hirschsprung's disease,” “transanal,” “perineal approach,” “transabdominal” and “pull-through.” The reference lists of the full articles were also manually searched to identify additional eligible studies."
Searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, reference lists, and no language restrictions.

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?  
[No]
No mention of including or searching for gray literature.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
[No]  
Provides references for included studies but not excluded.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
[Yes]
Study characteristics including surgery type, age, follow-up time, and outcomes summarized in Tables 1 and 2. 

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
[No] 
No quality assessment mentioned.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
[NA]
No quality assessment performed.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
[Yes] 
Used Mantel-Haenszel method for dichotomous data and inverse variance method for continuous data. Assessed heterogeneity with I2 statistic.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
[No]
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
[No]
No conflict of interest statement.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
[Yes]
"To compare the clinical outcomes of TERPT and TAB, we performed a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis from indexed published literature."

P2. Provide a structured summary.
[Yes]
Abstract provides background, objectives, data sources, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, conclusions.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
[Yes]
Introduction describes previous procedures for HD, introduction of TERPT, potential advantages/disadvantages of TERPT vs TAB, and need for systematic review.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed. 
[No] 
No PICO framework presented.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists and provide registration information.
[No] 
No protocol mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility.
[Yes]
Inclusion criteria were studies comparing functional outcomes of TERPT and TAB. Excluded conference abstracts and non-English studies.

P7. Describe information sources, search, and date last searched.
[Yes] 
Described databases searched, terms used, reference checking, no date limit but last search was March 2012.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database. 
[No]
Search strategy not provided.

P9. State the process for selecting studies.
[Yes]  
Selection process described and depicted in Figure 1.

P10. Describe method of data extraction and confirmation.
[Yes]
"Each included study was independently appraised by 3 reviewers (C.Y., S.N., N.K.L.) and data were extracted and entered into a database. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus."

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought.
[Yes] 
Outcomes assessed included operative time, hospital stay, incontinence, constipation, enterocolitis. Definitions summarized in Table 3.

P12. Describe methods for assessing risk of bias. 
[No]
No risk of bias assessment.

P13. State the principal summary measures.
[Yes]
"Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous variables using the Mantel–Haenszel method. Pooled mean differences (MD) were measured for continuous variables using the inverse variance method in meta-analysis."

P14. Describe methods of handling data and combining results.
[Yes]  
Used fixed effects model for I2 <50% and random effects model for I2 ≥50%. Reported I2 values.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
[No]
No assessment of publication bias or selective reporting.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses.
[NA]
No additional analyses.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed, included, and excluded with reasons. 
[Yes] 
Number of studies at each stage provided in Figure 1. Gave reasons for study exclusions.

P18. For each study, present pertinent characteristics and provide citations.
[Yes]
Study characteristics detailed in Tables 1 and 2. 

P19. Present data on risk of bias for each study. 
[No]
No risk of bias assessment.

P20. Present results for each intervention group and effect estimates for each study.
[Yes]  
Table 2 provides results for each study. Forest plots with effect sizes presented in Figures 2-5.

P21. Present results of meta-analyses, including confidence intervals and consistency.
[Yes]
Pooled effect sizes with 95% CIs presented in text and Figures 2-5. I2 values assessing heterogeneity given.

P22. Present results of bias assessment across studies.
[NA] 
No bias assessment performed.

P23. Give results of additional analyses. 
[NA]
No additional analyses.

P24. Summarize main findings and discuss relevance.
[Yes] 
Conclusions summarize findings and call for more RCTs.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level and at review level.
[Yes]
Limitations discussed including lack of RCTs, retrospective design, heterogeneity, inconsistent definitions.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of results in context of other evidence.
[Yes]
Results interpreted in context of previous studies on TERPT vs TAB.

P27. Describe sources of funding and role of funders.
[No] 
No statement on funding or conflicts of interest.

In summary, for AMSTAR, 7 items were scored NA/No, 3 Yes, and 1 NA. For PRISMA, 10 items were scored NA/No, 15 Yes, and 2 NA. Make sure all AMSTAR and PRISMA items have been addressed before finalizing the assessment.

Graziano

LLM response

Here are my AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the given systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? [Yes]
"Data were compiled from a broad search of Medline, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science from January 1980 through January 2013 for five questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation."
The review had predetermined objectives and criteria.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? [Yes] 
"Abstracts were then reviewed and relevant articles selected by two of the authors (KG and SI), who also then performed independent manual searches of the reference lists of these articles, bringing the total reviewed to 2545."
Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. 

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? [Yes]
"Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a broad-based search strategy was conducted with two separate authors and librarians involved. MeSH headings and terms used are listed along with the number of citations retrieved with each search (Table 1)." 
Multiple databases were searched with predefined search strategies.

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion? [No]
No mention of including or excluding studies based on publication status.

A5. Was a list of studies provided? [No] 
No list of included/excluded studies provided.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? [No]
No summary table provided with details of included studies. 

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? [No]  
No formal quality assessment mentioned.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? [NA]
Since quality was not assessed, it was not incorporated into conclusions.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? [NA]  
No quantitative synthesis performed.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? [NA]
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? [No]
No statement about conflicts of interest.

P1. Identify as systematic review or meta-analysis. [Yes]
"Asymptomatic malrotation: Diagnosis and surgical management. An American Pediatric Surgical Association outcomes and evidence based practice committee systematic review"  
Identified as a systematic review in title.

P2. Structured summary. [Yes]  
Provides structured abstract with objectives, eligibility criteria, results, conclusions.

P3. Rationale for review. [Yes]
"Malrotation, also known as intestinal rotation abnormality (IRA), can pose a great risk to the pediatric patient owing to the potential for a catastrophic event such as midgut volvulus, ischemic bowel, and possible short bowel syndrome or death [1]."
Provides background and rationale.

P4. Objectives in PICOS. [Yes] 
Research questions address participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes.

P5. Indicate if protocol exists. [No] 
No mention of a protocol.

P6. Specify study characteristics and eligibility criteria. [No]
Does not report details of eligibility criteria.

P7. Information sources and dates. [Yes]
Reports databases searched and date ranges. 

P8. Present full search strategy. [No]
Does not provide full search strategy.

P9. Study selection process. [Yes]  
Describes process of screening and selection.

P10. Data extraction process. [Yes] 
States two authors extracted data.

P11. List and define variables extracted. [No]  
No list of extracted variables provided.

P12. Risk of bias assessment. [No]
No risk of bias assessment described.

P13. Summary measures. [NA]
No quantitative synthesis performed.

P14. Methods for combining data. [NA] 
No quantitative synthesis performed.

P15. Risk of bias across studies. [NA]
No quantitative synthesis performed.

P16. Additional analyses. [NA]
No quantitative synthesis performed.

P17. Study flow. [No]
No flow diagram depicting study selection.

P18. Study characteristics. [No] 
Does not present details of included studies.

P19. Risk of bias for individual studies. [No] 
Does not assess risk of bias for individual studies.

P20. Study data and effect sizes. [No]
Does not present data or effect estimates.

P21. Results of meta-analyses. [NA] 
No meta-analysis conducted.

P22. Risk of bias across studies. [NA]
No meta-analysis conducted.

P23. Additional analyses. [NA]
No additional analyses conducted.

P24. Summary of evidence. [Yes]
Provides summary of findings and implications. 

P25. Limitations at study and review level. [No]
Does not discuss limitations at study or review level.

P26. Interpretation of results. [Yes] 
Provides interpretation of findings and suggestions for future research.

P27. Sources of funding. [No]
No statement about sources of funding.

Gosemann

LLM response

 Here are my assessments of the systematic review using AMSTAR and PRISMA 2009:

A1. [Yes]
Quote: "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT."
Explained in 1 sentence: The authors state they performed a systematic search, indicating an a priori design.

A2. [No]  
No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. [Yes]
Quotes: "A systematic PubMed search was performed"; "Reference lists were screened for additional studies."
Explained in 1 sentence: The authors searched PubMed and reference lists, meeting criteria for at least 2 sources.

A4. [No]  
No mention of including or excluding studies based on publication status. 

A5. [Yes]  
Quote: "Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail."
Explained in 1 sentence: The number of included and excluded studies is stated.

A6. [Yes] 
Quotes: "A total of 1,412 subjects with HD were included in this review"; "Median age at surgery was 13 months in the OPEN group"; "Median follow-up was significantly longer in the OPEN group."   
Explained in 1 sentence: Participant characteristics such as sample size, age, and follow-up are provided in aggregated form.

A7. [No]
No assessment of study quality mentioned.

A8. [NA]
Not applicable since study quality was not assessed.

A9. [NA]  
No meta-analysis performed.

A10. [NA]
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

A11. [No]  
No statement about conflicts of interest.

P1. [Yes]  
Quote: "Open Versus Transanal Pull-Through for Hirschsprung Disease"  
Explained in 1 sentence: The title identifies the report as a systematic review.

P2. [Yes]
Quotes: "Abstract. Introduction...Conclusions."
Explained in 1 sentence: A structured abstract is provided with background, objectives, eligibility criteria, results, limitations, and conclusions.  

P3. [Yes]   
Quote: "Therefore, the aim of this study was to review the available data on long-term functional results in HD patients operated with conventional transabdominal pull-through (OPEN) compared with transanal endorectal pull-through with or without laparoscopy (L-TERPT/TERPT) reported in the recent literature."
Explained in 1 sentence: The rationale describes the aim to review long-term outcomes of different surgical techniques.

P4. [Yes]    
Quote: "We focused on long-term outcome in HD patients operated with conventional transabdominal pull-through (OPEN) compared with transanal endorectal pull-through with or without laparoscopy (L-TERPT/TERPT) using four major outcome parameters: constipation, incontinence, enterocolitis and anastomotic stricture."
Explained in 1 sentence: The review objectives specify participants (HD patients), interventions (OPEN vs L-TERPT/TERPT), and outcomes (constipation, incontinence, etc). 

P5. [No]     
No protocol mentioned.

P6. [Yes]
Quotes: "Only articles comprehensively describing the surgical methods (OPEN, L-TERPT, TERPT) and reporting on major outcome parameters (soiling/incontinence, constipation, enterocolitis, and/or stricture) were included in this study." 
Explained in 1 sentence: Inclusion criteria specify interventions and outcomes of interest.  

P7. [Yes]   
Quote: "A systematic PubMed search was performed to identify publications on outcome of children with HD, who underwent either OPEN, L-TERPT, or TERPT. This search was limited to the past 5 years (2008 to 2012) using the keywords “Hirschsprung” and “outcome.” Reference lists were screened for additional studies."
Explained in 1 sentence: Information sources (PubMed) and search strategy are described.

P8. [No]
No full search strategy provided.

P9. [Yes] 
Quote: "Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail." 
Explained in 1 sentence: The number of studies screened, assessed, and included is stated.

P10. [No]    
No description of data extraction methods.

P11. [Yes]
Quote: "Data extracted from included articles were study characteristics (authors, journal, publication year, sample size, surgical technique, and follow-up period) and patient characteristics (age at surgery, extent of aganglionosis). Specific information on the outcome parameters constipation, enterocolitis, stricture, incontinence, and soiling were collected and analyzed."
Explained in 1 sentence: Variables extracted including study details, participant details, and outcomes of interest are listed.

P12. [No]  
No assessment of risk of bias mentioned.

P13. [Yes]
Quote: "Odds ratio with 95% confidence interval were calculated."
Explained in 1 sentence: Odds ratio is specified as the summary measure.

P14. [NA]
No data synthesis performed. 

P15. [NA]  
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

P16. [NA]
No additional analyses mentioned.

P17. [Yes]    
Quote: "The initial literature search resulted in a total number of 148 articles published from 2008 to 2012. Of these, 130 articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria. Eighteen articles finally met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail." 
Explained in 1 sentence: The numbers of records screened and included/excluded are provided. 

P18. [Yes]
Quote: "Table 1 Frequency of postoperative constipation"
Explained in 1 sentence: A table provides extracted characteristics and citations for each included study.

P19. [No]   
No assessment of risk of bias provided.

P20. [Yes]
Quotes: "The mean rate of constipation was 21% (range 0 to 59%) in the OPEN group compared with 10% (range 0 to 27%) in the L-TERPT/TERPT group."; "A cumulative meta-analysis revealed that constipation was significantly more frequent after OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT (OR 3.89 [95% CI, 2.69 to 5.62]; p < 0.0001)" 
Explained in 1 sentence: Outcome data and analysis are presented for each study.

P21. [NA] 
No meta-analysis performed.

P22. [NA]
No assessment of risk of bias across studies.

P23. [NA]
No additional analyses mentioned. 

P24. [Yes]  
Quote: "Significant differences in the long-term outcome of OPEN surgery compared with L-TERPT/TERPT were identified in this review. We conclude from our data that L-TERPT/TERPT represents a valid option in the treatment of HD and might have some advantages over the OPEN techniques."
Explained in 1 sentence: Main findings and conclusions are summarized.

P25. [Yes]
Quotes: "However, the present data should be interpreted carefully due to limitations in the quality of the study design in most reports."; "Several limitations to this systematic review such as the different quality of studies and small cohort sizes need to be considered when interpreting these data."  
Explained in 1 sentence: Limitations at the study and review level are discussed.

P26. [Yes] 
Quote: "Prospective, randomized, multicenter trials are urgently needed to overcome this weakness of the current literature."
Explained in 1 sentence: Implications for future research are described.

P27. [No]
No mention of sources of funding.

Landisch

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the given systematic review:

A1. [Yes]
"This study was performed according to guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [6]." 
The study followed PRISMA guidelines which require an a priori design.

A2. [Yes] 
"Two independent researchers (R.L. and R.M.) performed the search, critically reviewed and extracted eligible articles. Bibliographies of identified studies were examined to identify any additional eligible studies. Duplicate listed articles were deleted. Two other independent researchers (A.A. and A.W.) confirmed the inclusion of appropriate citations based on study definitions and aims."
The review had duplicate study selection and data extraction.

A3. [Yes]
"An online database search for all articles published between January 1993 and January 2014 on pediatric patients using the following keywords was performed: “heterotaxy”, “rotation”, “volvulus”, “Ladd procedure”, “Ivemark”, “asplenia”, and “polysplenia”. Searches were repeated in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane library."
Multiple databases were searched with keywords.

A4. [No]  
No mention of searching for grey literature.

A5. [No]
No list of included/excluded studies provided. 

A6. [Yes] 
"Eleven retrospective studies describing 649 HS patients were identified." 
Table 1 provides characteristics of included studies.

A7. [No] 
No quality assessment of included studies mentioned.

A8. [NA]
No quality assessment was performed. 

A9. [NA]  
No meta-analysis was performed.

A10. [NA]
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

A11. [No]
No mention of conflicts of interest.

P1. [Yes]
"Observation versus prophylactic Ladd procedure for asymptomatic intestinal rotational abnormalities in heterotaxy syndrome: A systematic review"
Identified as a systematic review in title.

P2. [Yes] 
Structured abstract provided with background, objectives, eligibility criteria, results, conclusions.

P3. [Yes]
Rationale described in introduction.

P4. [No] 
No explicit PICO statement provided.

P5. [No]
No mention of a review protocol.

P6. [Yes]
Inclusion/exclusion criteria described. 

P7. [Yes]
Information sources described.

P8. [No]
No full search strategy provided.

P9. [Yes]  
Study selection process described. 

P10. [Yes]
Data extraction process described.

P11. [Yes] 
Outcomes described.

P12. [NA] 
No assessment of risk of bias mentioned.

P13. [NA]
No meta-analysis performed.

P14. [NA] 
No meta-analysis performed.

P15. [NA]
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

P16. [NA]
No additional analyses mentioned.

P17. [Yes]
Flow diagram of study selection provided.

P18. [Yes]
Study characteristics presented in Table 1. 

P19. [NA]
No assessment of risk of bias presented.

P20. [Yes] 
Summary data presented for outcomes.

P21. [NA]  
No meta-analysis performed.

P22. [NA]
No assessment of risk of bias across studies.

P23. [NA]
No additional analyses mentioned.

P24. [Yes] 
Main findings summarized in conclusion.

P25. [Yes]
Limitations discussed.

P26. [Yes]  
Results interpreted in context of other evidence.

P27. [No]
No mention of sources of funding.

Ells

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the systematic review:

AMSTAR
A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.
[No] 
No protocol was referenced. The aims were only briefly mentioned in the introduction section of the publication.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.
[Yes]
"Two review authors (LJE, EM) independently scanned the abstract, title, or both, of every record retrieved by the searches. We investigated all potentially relevant articles as full text. Where differences in opinion existed, they were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third review author (GA)."

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. 
[Yes]
"We searched the following sources on the 30th of March 2015 from inception to the specified database date and placed no restrictions on the language of publication:
- Cochrane Library: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (until issue 3, 2015), Database of Reviews of Effects (until issue 1, 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (until issue 2, 2015), Health Technology Assessment Database (until issue 1, 2015)  
- MEDLINE (until 30th March 2015)
- EMBASE (until week 13, 2015)
- PubMed (only subsets not available on Ovid) (until 30th March 2015)
- LILACS (until 25th February 2015)
- ClinicalTrials.gov (until 30th March 2015)
- World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)"

The full search strategy is provided in the appendix.

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.
[No]
No mention of grey literature searching.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.
[Yes] 
A list of included and excluded studies is provided. 

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.
[Yes]
Participant and intervention characteristics were provided in table format. Some relevant socioeconomic data were missing.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.
[Yes]
The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.
[Yes]
The quality assessment was discussed in the conclusions.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?).
[NA] 
Only one study was included so no meta-analysis was performed.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken).
[NA]
Only one study was included so assessment of publication bias was not applicable.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.
[No]
Sources of support were reported for the included study but not for the review itself.

In summary, this systematic review met 7/11 AMSTAR criteria. Strengths include duplicate study selection/data extraction, a comprehensive literature search, provision of study characteristics, quality assessment and consideration of study quality in conclusions. Weaknesses are the lack of an a priori protocol, grey literature searching, and conflict of interest reporting for the review. Other criteria were not applicable due to only one included study.

PRISMA

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
[Yes]
The title indicates this is a systematic review.

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
[Yes]
A structured abstract is provided covering all key elements.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
[Yes] 
The background section describes the rationale and what is already known.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
[Yes]
The review objectives, inclusion criteria, and outcomes are clearly specified. 

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
[No]
No protocol was referenced.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
[Yes]
Eligibility criteria for studies are provided along with rationale.

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
[Yes]
The information sources, dates of coverage, and date last searched are provided.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
[Yes]
The full search strategy for multiple databases is provided in an appendix.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
[Yes]
The study selection process is described and depicted in a flow diagram.

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
[Yes] 
The data extraction process is described.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
[Yes]
Outcomes sought are clearly defined.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
[Yes]
Risk of bias methods are described and a risk of bias summary is presented.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
[Yes]
The planned summary measures are stated.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
[NA]
No meta-analysis was performed.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
[NA] 
Assessment of publication bias was not applicable with only one study.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
[NA]
No meta-analysis was performed.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
[Yes]
A PRISMA flow diagram is provided detailing studies at each stage.

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. 
[Yes]
Study characteristics are presented in table format along with citations.

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12).
[Yes]
A risk of bias summary figure is provided.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group, (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
[Yes]
For the single study, summary data and effect estimates are presented for key outcomes. 

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
[NA]
No meta-analysis was performed. 

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15).
[NA] 
Assessment of publication bias was not applicable with only one study.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]).
[NA]
No additional analyses were performed.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
[Yes]
The main findings and implications are summarized in the discussion and conclusions.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
[Yes]
Limitations at the study and review level are discussed.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
[Yes]
The results are interpreted in the context of other evidence and implications for future research are discussed.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
[No]
Sources of funding for the review were not reported.

In summary, this systematic review met 21/27 PRISMA criteria. Strengths include a structured abstract, rationale, eligibility criteria, comprehensive search, study selection process, extracted data, risk of bias assessment, study characteristics, results, limitations, interpretation of results, and flow diagram. Weaknesses were the lack of an a priori protocol, review funding sources, and items not applicable due to only one included study (meta-analysis, assessment of publication bias, additional analyses).

In summary, based on the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments, this systematic review was generally well conducted but had some limitations in reporting. The main limitations were the lack of an a priori protocol, no grey literature search, and no statement of sources of funding for the review. The review also would have benefited from inclusion of more studies. Overall, it provides a moderately robust systematic assessment of the limited evidence currently available on bariatric surgery for obesity in adolescents.

Apelt

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. [No]
- No protocol or pre-determined research objectives referenced.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. [No]
- No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. [Yes]
- PubMed, Medline and Ovid searched from 1990-2012. References of studies searched. Search strings and databases stated. 

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. [No] 
- No mention of searching for grey literature.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. [No]
- No list of excluded studies provided.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. [Yes]
- Table 1 provides details on study years, sample size, age, sex ratio, conversions, complications.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. [No]
- No quality assessment of included studies mentioned.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. [NA]
- No quality assessment performed.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). [NA] 
- No meta-analysis performed.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). [NA]
- No assessment of publication bias mentioned. 

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. [No]
- No mention of conflicts of interest or funding sources.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
- Identified as a systematic review in title.

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. [No]
- No structured abstract provided.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. [Yes] 
- Background section describes rationale.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). [No]
- No explicit PICOS statement.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. [No]
- No protocol mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. [Yes]
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria described in methods. Study characteristics detailed in Table 1. 

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. [Yes]
- Databases, date ranges, and supplementary search methods described.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. [No]
- No full search strategy provided.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). [Yes]
- Screening and selection process described and shown in Figure 1.

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. [No]  
- No details on data extraction process.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. [No]
- Outcomes not predefined.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. [No]
- No risk of bias assessment described.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). [No]  
- No summary measures stated a priori.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. [NA]
- No meta-analysis performed.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). [NA]
- No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. [NA]
- No additional analyses mentioned.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. [Yes]
- Screening process shown in Figure 1. 

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. [Yes]  
- Table 1 presents key study characteristics.

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12). [No]
- No risk of bias assessment presented.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. [No]
- No forest plots or effect estimates presented.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. [NA]
- No meta-analysis performed.

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15). [NA]  
- No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]). [NA]
- No additional analyses mentioned.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). [No]  
- No summary of main findings or strength of evidence.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). [No]
- No limitations discussed.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. [Yes]
- Results interpreted in discussion section.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. [No] 
- No mention of funding sources.

In summary, the AMSTAR assessment found this review to be inadequate in terms of an a priori protocol, duplicate study selection/data extraction, grey literature searching, quality assessment, assessment of publication bias, and stating conflicts of interest. The PRISMA assessment found deficiencies in providing a structured abstract, full search strategy, data extraction methods, risk of bias assessment, summary measures, forest plots, study limitations, summary of findings, and sources of funding. Overall, this review has multiple methodological shortcomings.

Cullis

LLM response

Here are the responses for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items based on the attached publication:

AMSTAR
A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”
- "Based on uncertainty and controversy, we undertook a systematic review of the available literature" (Introduction)
- Review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines (Methods)
- Local review protocol established (Methods)
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined (Methods, Table 1)
[No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.
- "Two reviewers (P.S.C., S.S.) performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment processes independently and all data was recorded in tabular form electronically." (Methods)  
- "Disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with the third reviewer/senior corresponding author who conceived the study (P.D.L.)." (Methods)
[Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).
- Searched CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Databases from inception to January 2015 (updated June 2015) (Methods)
- Search strategy provided in supplement (Methods)  
- Conference proceedings searched (Methods)
- Reference lists of included articles searched (Methods)
- Authors' institutional data included (Methods)
[Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.
- Conference proceedings searched (Methods)
- Authors' institutional unpublished data included (Methods)
[Yes]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”
- References for included studies provided in Table 2 (Results)
- Flow diagram not provided 
[No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above. Paul "Follow-up poorly reported in general"
- Table 2 provides summary characteristics of included studies (Results)
- Table 3 provides detailed findings from studies that reported management pathways (Results)
- Follow-up was poorly reported in general
[Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).
- Quality assessed using MINORS criteria (Methods)  
- Results of MINORS scoring presented in Figure 1 (Results)
[Yes]  

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.
- Limitations in study quality and risk of bias discussed (Discussion)
- Conclusions acknowledge weak evidence base and need for careful interpretation
[Yes]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.
- Meta-analysis not performed due to study design (Results)
[NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.  
- Publication bias not assessed
- Flow diagram not provided to identify number of studies screened
[No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.
- No funding received for systematic review stated (Methods)
- Funding sources not reported for included studies
[No]

PRISMA
P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 
- Identified as a systematic review in title, abstract, and text
[Yes]

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Structured abstract provided with all elements
[Yes]  

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Rationale described in introduction 
[Yes]

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Research questions stated in introduction
[Yes]

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- Local review protocol mentioned but not publicly available
[No]

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria described in Methods (Table 1)
[Yes]

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Information sources described in Methods
- Dates of last search provided  
[Yes]

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Search strategy provided in supplement
[Yes]

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Study selection process described in Methods
- Flow diagram not provided
[No]

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. 
- Data extraction process described in Methods
[Yes]

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Outcomes described in Methods
[Yes]

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quality assessment using MINORS described (Methods)
[Yes]

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- No meta-analysis performed
[NA]  

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. 
- No meta-analysis performed
[NA]

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Publication bias not assessed (Methods, Results)
[No]

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- No additional analyses performed
[NA]

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Number of studies screened reported in text (Results)
- No flow diagram provided
[No]

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Study characteristics presented in Tables 2 and 3 
[Yes]

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- MINORS results presented in Figure 1
[Yes]

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. 
- No meta-analysis performed
[NA]

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- No meta-analysis performed 
[NA]

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
- No assessment of publication bias
[No] 

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- No additional analyses performed
[NA]

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Main findings summarized in abstract and discussion
[Yes]

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Limitations discussed in discussion
[Yes]

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Results interpreted in discussion 
[Yes]

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 
- No funding received stated
[Yes]

In summary, for AMSTAR:
- Yes: A2, A3, A4, A6, A7, A8  
- No: A1, A5, A10, A11
- NA: A9

For PRISMA: 
- Yes: P1, P2, P3, P4, P6, P7, P8, P10, P11, P12, P18, P19, P24, P25, P26, P27
- No: P5, P9, P15, P17, P22
- NA: P13, P14, P16, P20, P21, P23

Thank you for the opportunity to critically appraise this publication. Please let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand on any part of the assessment.

Oliviera

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the given systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? [No]
"We performed a Pubmed search using the terms: neophalloplasty, neophallus, and phalloplasty" No mention of a protocol.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? [No] 
No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? [Yes]
"A total of 319 articles were identified in the initial search. When limited to the pediatric population, the search was reduced to only 19 articles" PubMed searched with supplementary strategies. 

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? [No] 
No mention of including or excluding based on publication status.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? [No]
No explicit list of included/excluded studies provided.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? [Yes]
Table 1 provides characteristics like number of patients, type of surgery, and length of follow-up. 

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? [No] 
No quality assessment mentioned.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? [NA]
No quality assessment performed.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? [NA]  
No quantitative synthesis performed.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? [No]
No assessment of publication bias mentioned. 

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? [No]
No COI statement provided.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
"Review article: Neophalloplasty in boys with aphallia: A systematic review"

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. [No] 
No structured abstract provided.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. [Yes] 
Introduction provides context about aphallia and rationale for neophalloplasty vs gender reassignment.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). [No]
No explicit PICOS statement provided.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. [No]
No review protocol mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. [No]
Inclusion/exclusion criteria not specified.

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. [No] 
Only mentions searching PubMed, no dates given.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. [No]
Search strategy not provided.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). [No] 
No details on study selection process. 

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. [No]
No data extraction methodology described.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. [No]
Data items not defined.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. [No] 
No risk of bias assessment.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). [NA]  
No quantitative synthesis performed.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. [NA]
No quantitative synthesis performed.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). [No]
No assessment of risk of bias across studies.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. [NA]
No additional analyses done.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. [No]  
Number of records screened and assessed not reported. No flow diagram.

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. [Yes]
Table 1 presents some characteristics of included studies like sample size, intervention details, follow-up period. 

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12). [No]
No risk of bias assessment presented.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. [No] 
No outcome data presented.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. [NA]
No meta-analysis performed.

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15). [No]  
No assessment of bias across studies.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]). [NA]
No additional analyses performed.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). [No]
No summary of main findings or strength of evidence.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). [No]
No limitations discussed. 

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. [Yes]
Provides interpretation and implications for neophalloplasty vs gender reassignment.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. [No] 
No funding sources reported.

Lane

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?
"Paediatric sutureless circumcision: a systematic literature review"
The research question and inclusion criteria are established in the title. [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? 
No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction. [No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
"At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE)."
No details provided on literature search strategy. [No] 

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?
No mention of including or excluding studies based on publication status. [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Included studies are referenced, no list of excluded studies. [No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Table format not used but relevant characteristics described in text. [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
No quality assessment tool or method described. [No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
No quality assessment done. [NA] 

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?  
No quantitative synthesis performed. [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
No assessment of publication bias. [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? 
No statement on sources of support. [No]

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Identified as systematic review in title. [Yes]

P2. Provide a structured summary.
Abstract provides structured summary. [Yes]

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.  
Rationale described in introduction. [Yes]

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Objectives stated but PICOS not specified. [No]

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed.
No protocol mentioned. [No]  

P6. Specify study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility. 
No eligibility criteria described. [No]

P7. Describe all information sources in the search and date last searched.
No description of information sources or search. [No]

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
No search strategy provided. [No]

P9. State the process for selecting studies. 
No process for study selection described. [No]

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports.
No data extraction methodology. [No] 

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought.
No list of data variables. [No]

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies.
No risk of bias assessment. [No]

P13. State the principal summary measures.
No quantitative synthesis performed. [NA]

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done. 
No quantitative synthesis performed. [NA]

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
No assessment of risk of bias across studies. [No]  

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses, if done.
No additional analyses. [NA]

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage. 
No flow diagram or details on study selection process. [No]

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted.
Study characteristics presented in text. [Yes]

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study. 
No risk of bias assessment for individual studies. [No]

P20. For all outcomes considered, present simple summary data for each intervention group, effect estimates and confidence intervals.
No quantitative synthesis performed. [NA]

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
No meta-analysis conducted. [NA]

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.
No assessment of risk of bias across studies. [NA] 

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done.
No additional analyses conducted. [NA]

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
Main findings summarized in conclusion. [Yes]

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level.
No limitations discussed. [No]

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
General interpretation and implications provided in conclusion. [Yes]

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support.
No statement on sources of funding. [No]

Mei

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA 2009 assessments for the given systematic review:

A1: [Yes] "the literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers"
Explanation: The review states that study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate.

A2: [Yes] "the literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers"  
Explanation: The review states that study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate.

A3: [Yes] "We searched online databases, including Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane...All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found."
Explanation: The review searched multiple databases and supplemented with additional strategies. 

A4: [No] The review does not mention searching for grey literature.

A5: [Yes] "Flowchart of study selection is provided in Figure 1."
Explanation: The review includes a flow diagram depicting included and excluded studies.

A6: [Yes] "A summary of the studies’ methodology, participant features, intervention characteristics, measured outcomes, and the use of stents and drainage is provided in Tables 1 to 4."  
Explanation: The review provides aggregated details on participants, interventions, and outcomes in table format.

A7: [No] The review does not report assessing the quality of individual studies.

A8: [NA] Since study quality was not assessed, it was not used in formulating conclusions.

A9: [Yes] "Statistical heterogeneity was assessed via the I2 index."  
Explanation: The review assessed heterogeneity using I2 statistics.

A10: [No] The review does not report assessing publication bias.

A11: [No] The review does not report on sources of funding/support for included studies.

P1: [Yes] "Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
Explanation: The title identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis.

P2: [Yes] The abstract provides a structured summary.

P3: [Yes] The introduction describes the rationale and background.

P4: [Yes] "To comprehensively review the available evidences in the literature on the use of laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) vs open pyeloplasty (OP) for the repair of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction in children."  
Explanation: The review describes the PICO elements in the objectives.

P5: [No] The review does not mention a protocol.

P6: [Yes] "Inclusion criteria included all available studies that compared LP with OP for the management of UPJ obstruction in the pediatric population younger than 18 years."
Explanation: The review describes eligibility criteria including population, interventions, and study designs considered. 

P7: [Yes] "We searched online databases, including Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane... The ‘‘pyeloplasty,’’ ‘‘laparoscopy,’’ ‘‘laparoscopic pyeloplasty,’’ and ‘‘ureteropelvic junction obstruction’’ were used as search terms."
Explanation: The review describes the databases searched and search terms used.

P8: [No] The review does not provide a full search strategy.

P9: [Yes] "Flowchart of study selection is provided in Figure 1." 
Explanation: The review describes the study screening and selection process in a flow diagram.

P10: [Yes] "the literature search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers"
Explanation: The review states that data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. 

P11: [Yes] "Data regarding the following factors were considered: Study methodology, participant features, intervention characteristics, definition of complications, and outcome measures."
Explanation: The review describes the variables extracted.

P12: [No] The review does not describe assessing risk of bias in individual studies.

P13: [Yes] "Meta-analyses were performed for the five primary outcome parameters: Operative time (in minutes), postoperative complications (in events per group), duration of hospital stay (in days), success rate (in events per group), and stenting rate (in events per group)."
Explanation: The review describes the summary measures used in the analyses.

P14: [Yes] "For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2)."  
Explanation: The review describes assessing heterogeneity in the meta-analyses.

P15: [No] The review does not report assessing publication bias.

P16: [NA] The review does not report additional analyses like sensitivity/subgroup analyses or meta-regression.

P17: [Yes] "Flowchart of study selection is provided in Figure 1."
Explanation: The review provides a flow diagram depicting the screening process and numbers at each stage.

P18: [Yes] "A summary of the studies’ methodology, participant features, intervention characteristics, measured outcomes, and the use of stents and drainage is provided in Tables 1 to 4."
Explanation: The review provides details on included studies in table format.

P19: [No] The review does not provide risk of bias assessments. 

P20: [Yes] The results section provides outcome data for each included study.

P21: [Yes] Where meta-analyses were done, pooled estimates are provided. 

P22: [NA] No assessment of risk of bias across studies was done.

P23: [NA] No additional analyses were done.

P24: [Yes] The discussion summarizes the main findings and implications.

P25: [Yes] The discussion considers limitations at the review and outcome level.

P26: [Yes] The discussion places the results in context of existing evidence and suggests implications for future research.

P27: [No] The review does not report on sources of funding.

Al-Hozaim

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review:

A1. [Yes] "A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane databases (June 2000 to April 2008) was conducted." The review had a predefined protocol for literature search and inclusion.
A2. [No] There is no mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction. 
A3. [Yes] "The search terms used were “laparoscopic,” “pull-through,” “anorectal malformation,” and “imperforate anus.” In addition to Medline and PubMed, a manual search of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Surgery International, Surgical Endoscopy, and the Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques published between June 2000 and April 2008 was conducted." Multiple databases were searched along with supplementary strategies.
A4. [No] There is no mention of searching for unpublished or grey literature.
A5. [No] A list of included and excluded studies is not provided. 
A6. [Yes] "We also recorded studies reporting the use of LAARP vs PSARP in patients with ARM. The recorded patient characteristics included age, sex, age at LAARP, type of fistula (defect), associated anomalies, operative time, and postoperative complications." Study characteristics were described in the results section.
A7. [No] No quality assessment of included studies is described.
A8. [NA] Study quality was not assessed so cannot be used in formulating conclusions.
A9. [NA] No quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis was performed.
A10. [NA] No assessment of publication bias is described.
A11. [No] No statement about conflicts of interest is provided.

P1. [Yes] "In this article, we closely examined literature on LAARP because it was initially described. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to examine literature pertaining to LAARP." The report is identified as a systematic review.
P2. [No] No structured abstract is provided.
P3. [Yes] "Our current understanding is that LAARP is predominantly indicated for patients with “high/intermediate” ARM. A second example lies with the wide variation of actual outcomes reported by each study. As discussed above, 10 different outcomes were reported in the 17 studies, and only 4 studies attempted comparisons of outcomes." The rationale and context are described.
P4. [No] The review question and inclusion criteria are not explicitly stated in PICOS format.
P5. [No] No protocol registration is mentioned. 
P6. [Yes] "Inclusion criteria were studies of ARMs, regardless of level of the defect, with or without associated anomalies, use of LAARP as a primary procedure or with colostomy, and studies reported after the year 2000." Eligibility criteria are described.
P7. [Yes] "A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane databases (June 2000 to April 2008) was conducted. The search terms used were “laparoscopic,” “pull-through,” “anorectal malformation,” and “imperforate anus.” In addition to Medline and PubMed, a manual search of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Pediatric Surgery International, Surgical Endoscopy, and the Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques published between June 2000 and April 2008 was conducted." Information sources and dates are described. 
P8. [No] The full search strategy is not provided for any database.
P9. [No] The study selection process is not described.
P10. [No] No data extraction process is described. 
P11. [No] Variables extracted are not explicitly listed and defined.
P12. [No] No risk of bias assessment is described.
P13. [NA] No meta-analysis was performed.
P14. [NA] No meta-analysis was performed.  
P15. [NA] No assessment of risk of bias across studies is described.
P16. [NA] No additional analyses are described.
P17. [No] No flow diagram of study selection is provided.
P18. [No] No table with summary characteristics of included studies is provided.
P19. [No] No assessment of risk of bias is provided for individual studies. 
P20. [No] No forest plots with effect sizes are provided.
P21. [NA] No meta-analysis was performed.
P22. [NA] No assessment of risk of bias across studies is described. 
P23. [NA] No additional analyses are described.
P24. [No] No summary of main findings is provided.
P25. [Yes] "Our study has several limitations. First, this is a systematic review of mainly retrospective data. The quality of such review is only as good as the included studies." Limitations are described.
P26. [No] No general interpretation of results or implications for future research are provided.
P27. [No] No statement about sources of funding is provided.

Aikenhead

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paediatric bariatric surgery:

A1. [Yes] 
"We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 6 September 2010."
The review states comprehensive database searches were conducted.

A2. [No]
No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. [Yes]
"We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 6 September 2010. Hand-searching of the bibliographies of articles and reviews identified was also conducted."
Multiple databases and supplementary search methods were used. 

A4. [No] 
The review does not mention searching for or inclusion of grey literature.

A5. [No]
No list of included/excluded studies is provided.

A6. [Yes]
Table 1 shows characteristics of included studies such as age, BMI, follow-up period. 

A7. [No]
The quality of included studies is not assessed.

A8. [NA]
Study quality was not assessed so using it to formulate conclusions is not applicable.

A9. [NA]  
Meta-analysis was not done so assessing heterogeneity is not applicable.

A10. [NA] 
Assessment of publication bias is not applicable as no meta-analysis was conducted.

A11. [No]
No mention of conflicts of interest in the review or included studies.

P1. [Yes]  
"Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paediatric bariatric surgery: a systematic review"
Identified as a systematic review.  

P2. [No] 
No structured summary provided.

P3. [Yes]
"Strong evidence for successful and cost-effective obesity management strategies is still generally lacking, leading the medical profession to rely increasingly on surgical options to treat obesity in children and adolescents."
Provides context and rationale.

P4. [No]  
The review objective and inclusion criteria are broad, no explicit PICO stated.

P5. [No]  
No protocol registration mentioned.

P6. [Yes]  
"Articles with an abstract in English and full text in Danish, English, French, or Norwegian language were eligible. In addition, subjects had to be ≤19 years of age. At least one postoperative weight loss measure had to be reported, with a minimum follow-up time of 1 year post surgery." 
Inclusion criteria described.

P7. [Yes]
"We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 6 September 2010. Hand-searching of the bibliographies of articles and reviews identified was also conducted."
Information sources described.

P8. [No]
No full search strategy provided.

P9. [No]  
No details provided on study selection process. 

P10. [No]
No data extraction methodology described.

P11. [No]  
Review does not pre-define variables sought.

P12. [No] 
No assessment of risk of bias described.

P13. [NA]
Measures of treatment effect not applicable as no meta-analysis conducted.

P14. [NA]  
Methods for combining data are not applicable as no meta-analysis was done.

P15. [NA]
Assessment of publication bias not applicable without meta-analysis. 

P16. [NA]
No additional analyses done.

P17. [No]
No flow diagram of study selection provided.

P18. [Yes] 
Table 1 shows characteristics of included studies.

P19. [No]
No assessment of risk of bias for individual studies presented.

P20. [No] 
No summary data for each intervention by study.

P21. [NA]  
No meta-analysis so no combined results.

P22. [NA] 
No assessment of bias across studies as no meta-analysis.

P23. [NA]
No additional analysis. 

P24. [No]  
No summary of main findings or discussion of strength of evidence.

P25. [Yes]
Sections on limitations of existing literature and issues requiring further investigation discuss shortcomings and biases.

P26. [Yes]  
Provides general interpretation of results in context of other evidence.

P27. [No]
No statement on sources of funding or support.

In summary, the review appears to have substantial methodological limitations based on AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments. Key issues are the lack of duplicate study selection/data extraction, risk of bias assessment, details on screening and selection process, and quantitative synthesis. The reporting is fairly poor. Overall, I would rate this as a low quality systematic review with high risk of bias. Caution should be taken when interpreting the results.

Aworanti

LLM response

Here are the extracted quotes, reasoning, and responses for each AMSTAR and PRISMA item:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
- "We aim to comparatively review all published treatment options, and outcomes, for managing RTEF." (Introduction, p. 365)
- Provides clear objective and inclusion criteria a priori.
[Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.  
- Single author (Olugbenga Aworanti) reviewed studies and extracted data.
[No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- "A Medline, Embase, and web of science searches were performed using the keywords “recurrent tracheoesophageal fistula.” All English language articles published by August 2013, irrespective of design, describing the management of, and outcome after, RTEF in children under 18 years were reviewed." (Patients/Materials and Methods, p. 365)
- Searched multiple databases for relevant studies.
[Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?  
- No mention of including or excluding grey literature. Search focused on published studies.
[No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Included studies summarized in Tables 1 and 2. No list of excluded studies provided.
[No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
- Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of study characteristics such as number of patients, interventions, outcomes, etc.
[Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- No formal quality assessment of included studies.
[No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- No quality assessment performed.
[NA] 

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?  
- No quantitative synthesis/meta-analysis performed.
[NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- No assessment of publication bias mentioned.
[No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
- No conflicts of interest stated for the systematic review itself or the included studies.
[No]

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Identified as a systematic review in title.
[Yes]

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Abstract provides background, objectives, data sources, participants/interventions, results, and conclusions. No study appraisal, limitations, or registration number reported.
[No]

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Introduction provides context about management options for recurrent TEF and rationale for conducting systematic review.
[Yes]

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Clear objective stated to review treatment options and outcomes for recurrent TEF, but lacks details on PICOS.
[No]

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- No protocol mentioned.
[No]

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Eligibility criteria described for including studies on management of recurrent TEF in children <18 years through August 2013 in English language. No other PICOS details provided.
[No] 

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Databases searched (Medline, Embase, Web of Science) reported. Last search date of August 2013 provided. No supplemental search methods described.  
[No]

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- No full search strategy presented. Only keywords "recurrent tracheoesophageal fistula" reported.
[No]

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- No details provided on screening process or selection criteria beyond broad eligibility criteria.
[No]

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. 
- No details provided on data extraction process. Appears a single author extracted relevant data.
[No]

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- No list of variables for which data sought was provided. Tables 1 and 2 summarize some key data extracted.
[No]

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- No risk of bias assessment performed.
[No]

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- No meta-analysis performed.
[NA]

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. 
- No meta-analysis performed.
[NA]

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- No assessment of risk of bias across studies.
[No]

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- No additional analyses done.
[NA]

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Number of included studies reported, but no information on screening process or studies excluded. No flow diagram. 
[No]

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. 
- Tables 1 and 2 summarize some key characteristics of included studies, including number of patients, interventions, outcomes, and citations. But lacks comprehensive details on PICOS and follow-up periods.
[No]

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- No assessment of risk of bias for individual studies.
[No] 

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- No effect estimates or confidence intervals presented. Tables 1 and 2 provide some summary data on interventions and outcomes for each study.  
[No]

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- No meta-analysis performed.
[NA]

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).  
- No assessment of risk of bias across studies.
[No]

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- No additional analyses performed.
[NA]

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Conclusions section summarizes main findings but does not mention strength of evidence or relevance to key groups.
[No]

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Limitations around heterogeneity and case reports predominance mentioned briefly in discussion. Does not discuss limitations related to lack of risk of bias assessment, incomplete retrieval of studies, or reporting biases.
[No]

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Results interpreted and compared to previous reviews on the topic. Implications for future research provided.
[Yes]

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 
- No statement on sources of funding or support for the review.
[No]

Leevan

LLM response

Here are my assessments of the systematic review using AMSTAR and PRISMA 2009:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
"The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review."
[Yes] The objectives are clearly stated in the Introduction: "This study aimed to review current practices in pediatric blunt renal trauma management and to highlight current practices in conservative protocols, success rates of conservative management strategies, as well as short- and long-term outcomes of blunt renal trauma management."

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
"There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place."  
[No] The methods section does not mention duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
"At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE)."
[Yes] The methods state: "A search of all original research studies was conducted using PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library. The following search was performed in PubMed: (Renal or Kidney) AND (Pediatric or Children) AND Trauma AND Management. Publications were limited to publish date after January 1, 2000."

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
"The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type."
[No] The review did not mention searching for grey literature.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
"A list of included and excluded studies should be provided."
[No] No list of excluded studies is provided.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? 
"In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes."
[Yes] Table 2 provides relevant characteristics of the included studies.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
"'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria)."
[Yes] The methods state: "Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (Fig. 1)." And Figure 1 shows the tool used.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
"The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations."
[Yes] The limitations section acknowledges the lack of randomized trials and the reliance on retrospective studies. 

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? 
"For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2)."
[NA] The findings were not combined quantitatively.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
"An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken)."
[NA] Assessment of publication bias is not applicable, as no meta-analysis was performed.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? 
"Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies."
[Yes] The conflict of interest statement indicates no conflicts of interest.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
[Yes] The title clearly identifies it as a systematic review.

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
[Yes] The abstract provides a structured summary covering all key elements.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
[Yes] The introduction provides context and rationale, summarizing the evidence and knowledge gaps.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).  
[No] The review does not frame questions in a PICOS format.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
[No] No review protocol is mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
[Yes] The methods section specifies inclusion/exclusion criteria including population, interventions, outcomes, and study types. 

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. 
[Yes] The methods section describes the databases searched, search terms, limits applied, and date range.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
[No] The full search strategy is not presented for any database.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
[Yes] The methods section describes the screening and selection process.

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
[No] The methods do not describe the data extraction process.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
[Yes] Table 2 lists the key variables extracted from each study.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. 
[Yes] The methods section states that the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess study bias.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
[NA] No meta-analysis was performed.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
[NA] No meta-analysis was performed. 

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
[NA] No assessment of publication bias or selective reporting was performed since no meta-analysis was conducted.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. 
[NA] No additional analyses were performed.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
[No] The number of records screened and assessed is not reported. No flow diagram is provided.

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
[Yes] Table 2 presents relevant extracted characteristics for each included study. 

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
[No] Individual study bias assessments are not presented.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
[NA] Outcome data were summarized narratively; no quantitative synthesis was performed.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
[NA] No meta-analysis was performed.

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).  
[NA] No assessment of risk of bias across studies was done since no meta-analysis was performed.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression) (see Item P16).
[NA] No additional analyses were performed.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
[Yes] The discussion summarizes the main findings and their implications.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
[Yes] The limitations section acknowledges the lack of randomized trials, small sample sizes, retrospective designs, and heterogeneity in reporting.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
[Yes] The discussion interprets the findings in the context of the current literature and provides implications for research.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 
[Yes] The disclosure statement indicates no funding sources or conflicts of interest.

Heloury

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review:

A1. [No] No mention of an a priori design or protocol.

A2. [No] No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. [Yes] "The authors conducted a systematic review of the pediatric and adult literature about MIA, focusing on the technique and indications."

A4. [No] No mention of searching for or including grey literature. 

A5. [No] No explicit list of included and excluded studies provided.

A6. [Yes] Table 1 provides characteristics of included studies on MIA in children.

A7. [No] No assessment of quality of included studies.

A8. [NA] No quality assessment done, so using it to formulate conclusions not applicable.

A9. [NA] No quantitative synthesis done. 

A10. [NA] No assessment of publication bias done.

A11. [No] No mention of conflicts of interest.

P1. [Yes] "Review article" in title identifies it as a review.

P2. [No] No structured summary provided.

P3. [Yes] Introduction describes rationale and what is known about MIA.

P4. [No] No explicit PICOS statement.

P5. [No] No mention of a review protocol.

P6. [Yes] Inclusion criteria described under various sections. 

P7. [No] No details provided on information sources searched.

P8. [No] No search strategy provided.

P9. [No] No mention of study selection process. 

P10. [No] No mention of data extraction methods.

P11. [No] No list of variables extracted.

P12. [NA] No assessment of risk of bias done.

P13. [NA] No meta-analysis done.

P14. [NA] No meta-analysis done. 

P15. [NA] No assessment of publication bias.

P16. [NA] No additional analyses done.

P17. [No] No flow diagram of study selection process.

P18. [No] No detailed characteristics of included studies.

P19. [NA] No assessment of risk of bias. 

P20. [No] No forest plots presented.

P21. [NA] No meta-analysis done.

P22. [NA] No assessment of risk of bias across studies.

P23. [NA] No additional analyses done.

P24. [Yes] Main findings summarized in conclusion.

P25. [No] No discussion of limitations.

P26. [Yes] Results interpreted in context of other evidence. 

P27. [No] No mention of sources of funding.

Allen

LLM response

Here are the extracted quotes, reasoning, and responses for each AMSTAR and PRISMA item:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
"To address this issue, we reviewed our experience at a level 1 trauma center and report the largest analysis over the past 25 years. In conjunction, we performed a systematic review of all published reports regarding pediatric EDT to help identify the factors associated with morbidity and mortality."
They state they performed a systematic review, which implies a pre-determined protocol.
[Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
No mention of duplicate selection or extraction.
[No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
"These reports were obtained from a Medline search for all publications regarding EDT in the pediatric population for the past 40 year using the keywords “thoracotomy”, “emergency”, “trauma”, “resuscitation”, “pediatrics”, and “children”. Bibliographies of relevant publications were reviewed to identify reports that were not initially located with the Medline search."
They searched Medline and bibliography of relevant publications.
[Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? 
No mention of searching for grey literature.
[No] 

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Included studies listed in Table 1. No excluded studies listed.
[No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Table 1 provides limited characteristics (number blunt/penetrating trauma, survival). More details provided in results section.
[Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
No quality assessment mentioned.
[No]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
No quality assessment performed.
[NA]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?  
No quantitative synthesis performed.
[NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
No assessment of publication bias.
[No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? 
No statement on conflicts of interest.
[No]

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Identified as systematic review in title.
[Yes]

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Structured abstract provided with background, methods, results, and conclusions. No details on eligibility criteria, quality assessment, or registration number.
[No]

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Rationale described in introduction.
[Yes] 

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). 
No explicit PICOS statement provided.
[No]

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
No mention of review protocol.
[No]

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Inclusion criteria not explicitly specified.
[No]

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Sources described (Medline) but no date range or last search date provided. 
[No]

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Search strategy for Medline not provided.
[No]

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Selection process not described.
[No]

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. 
No details on data extraction process provided.
[No]

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
List of extracted variables described in results. No assumptions mentioned.
[Yes]

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
No risk of bias assessment performed.
[NA]

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
No quantitative synthesis performed.
[NA]

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. 
No quantitative synthesis performed.
[NA]

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
No assessment of publication bias or other biases.
[No]

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
No additional analyses performed.
[NA]

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Number of included studies provided but no details on screening or exclusions. No flow diagram.
[No]

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Limited characteristics presented for each study (see A6). Citations provided.
[Partial Yes]

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
No risk of bias assessment performed.
[NA]

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
No effect estimates or CIs presented. Simple summary data provided. No forest plots created.
[No]

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
No meta-analysis performed.
[NA]

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).  
No assessment of risk of bias performed.
[NA]

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
No additional analyses performed.
[NA]

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Main findings summarized in discussion, but strength of evidence not discussed.
[No]

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Limitations discussed in discussion section.
[Yes]

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Results interpreted in context of other evidence in discussion. Suggestions for future research provided.
[Yes]

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 
No statement on sources of funding or support.
[No]

In summary, the authors identified their report as a systematic review, described the rationale, stated the research questions, listed some characteristics of included studies, presented simple summary data for the outcomes, discussed limitations, and interpreted the results in context of other evidence. However, they did not provide details on the review methods, including the study selection process, data extraction process, assessment of study quality or risk of bias, evaluation of publication bias, or a flow diagram. There was also no quantitative synthesis. Additional details on the review methods, quantitative synthesis, and funding sources could improve the reporting based on PRISMA guidelines.

Peters

LLM response

Here are the assessments for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
[Yes]
"Medline, PubMed, National Library of Health and Google Scholarly articles from year 1997 to August 2011 were searched."
The review had pre-defined search criteria and databases.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
[No] 
There is no mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
[Yes]
"Medline, PubMed, National Library of Health and Google Scholarly articles from year 1997 to August 2011 were searched." 
Multiple databases were searched.

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
[No]
Grey literature was not mentioned.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
[No]
A list of included and excluded studies was not provided.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
[Yes]
Table 1 summarizes the number of patients from each included study. Tables 2 and 3 provide details on complications and outcomes.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
[No]
The quality of individual studies was not assessed.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? 
[NA]
Study quality was not assessed.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
[NA]  
Findings were not combined quantitatively.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
[No]
Publication bias was not assessed.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
[No]
Conflicts of interest were not reported for the included studies.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
[Yes]
"Morbidity and mortality in total esophagogastric dissociation: A systematic review"

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
[No]
A structured abstract with all elements was not provided.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
[Yes] 
The introduction provides background and rationale.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
[No]
The review question and PICOS criteria were not explicitly stated.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
[No] 
A protocol was not mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
[Partial]
Inclusion criteria were studies of esophagogastric dissociation in children, but details were lacking.

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
[Yes]
Databases searched were reported along with date ranges. Authors were contacted for additional data. 

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
[No]
The full search strategy was not presented.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
[No]
The study selection process was not described.

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. 
[No]
The data extraction process was not described.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
[Partial] 
Outcomes extracted were described but not defined.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
[No]
Risk of bias assessment was not described.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
[NA]
Quantitative synthesis was not done.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.  
[NA]
Studies were not combined quantitatively.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
[NA] 
Risk of bias assessment was not done.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
[NA]
Additional analyses were not done.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
[No]
The screening process was not described.

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. 
[Partial]
Table 1 summarizes the number of patients from each study. Details on populations and follow-up were lacking. 

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
[NA] 
Risk of bias was not assessed.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
[NA]
Data were presented descriptively, not quantitatively.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
[NA]
A meta-analysis was not done.

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).  
[NA]  
Risk of bias assessment was not done.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
[NA]
No additional analyses were reported.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
[Yes]
The discussion summarizes the main findings and their relevance.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
[Partial]
Limitations of the review methods were not discussed, but limitations of the evidence base were.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
[Yes] 
The results are interpreted and compared to previous studies. Future research implications are discussed.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
[No]
Sources of funding and support were not reported.

Corbett

LLM response

Here are the extracted quotes, reasoning, and responses for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”
- "The purpose of this review was to combine data from published series of endopyelotomy in children to give an overview of outcomes for this approach to PUJO." [Introduction]
- No protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined objectives referenced. Review and inclusion criteria appear to have been established retrospectively.
[No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.
- "The inclusion of publications was decided by both the study authors and data were extracted independently by both study authors." [Methods]
[Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).
- "Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant key search terms (pelviureteric junction, ureteropelvic junction, obstruction, paediatric, pediatric, child$, balloon, dilatation, endopyelotomy, open, laparoscopic, pyeloplasty)." [Methods]
- Search supplemented by screening references of retrieved studies. 
[Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.
- No mention of searching or including grey literature. 
[No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”
- List of included studies provided in Tables 1 and 2. Excluded studies not listed.
[No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above. Paul "Follow-up poorly reported in general"
- Tables 1 and 2 provide aggregated data on participants (age range, number of procedures), interventions (technique), and outcomes (success rate, complications, follow-up duration).
[Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).
- No formal quality assessment of included studies documented. Study limitations discussed in Discussion.
[No] 

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.
- No formal quality assessment performed. Study limitations appropriately discussed in relation to conclusions.
[No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.
- Quantitative synthesis/meta-analysis not performed due to heterogeneity.
[NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.  
- Publication bias not assessed.
[No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.
- No conflicts of interest or sources of support stated for systematic review or included studies.
[No]

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Identified as systematic review in title.
[Yes]

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, synthesis methods, results, conclusions provided in abstract. No registration number. Limitations not summarized.
[No] 

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Rationale and context described in Introduction.
[Yes]

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
- Objective to "systematically analyse published literature to give an overall success rate for endopyelotomy in children" stated. Participants, intervention, and outcome implicitly clear, no comparisons or study design delineated. 
[No]

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- No protocol referenced.
[No]

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Eligibility criteria specified (pediatric studies, case reports and small series excluded). No exclusion criteria based on publication status or language stated.
[No]

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
- Databases and supplemental search strategy described. Date of last search provided. No contact with study authors mentioned.  
[Yes]

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Search terms but not full search strategy provided.
[No]

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Selection process described. No meta-analysis performed.
[Yes] 

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. 
- Independent dual data extraction described. No confirmation from investigators.
[Yes]

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- Data extracted summarized. No explicit listing of variables provided.
[No]

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- No risk of bias assessment performed.
[NA]

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- No meta-analysis performed.
[NA]

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. 
- No meta-analysis performed.
[NA]

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- No assessment of publication bias or other biases performed.
[NA]

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- No additional analyses performed.
[NA]

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Number of records screened and assessed stated. Flow diagram provided detailing screening and reasons for exclusions. 
[Yes]

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- Study characteristics and citations presented in Tables 1 and 2.
[Yes]

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- No risk of bias assessment performed.
[NA]

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- No meta-analysis performed.
[NA]

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- No meta-analysis performed. 
[NA]

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).  
- No assessment of risk of bias performed.
[NA]

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- No additional analyses performed.
[NA]

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Main findings summarized in Discussion and Conclusion sections. Relevance to clinical practice considered.
[Yes]

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Limitations of included studies and review discussed. 
[Yes]

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Results interpreted in context of other evidence on management of PUJO. Implications for future research not discussed.
[No]

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
- No sources of funding or support stated.
[No]

Puligandla

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? [No]
"No protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives are mentioned."

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? [Yes]  
"Two of the principal authors independently scanned all titles as a first screen after which selected abstracts and/or full-length papers were collected for further review."

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? [Yes]
"Separate search terms were applied for each question using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases."

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? [No] 
"The review does not indicate searching for unpublished literature or grey literature."

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? [No]
"No list of included or excluded studies is provided." 

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? [Yes]
"Data compiled for each article included sample size, description of the procedures performed or medications used, method of ventilation, use of ECMO, timing of repair, outcomes including mortality and morbidity, and type of patch used."

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? [Yes]
"Studies selected for inclusion were critically appraised and ranked on their level of evidence based on the type of study (retrospective or prospective, randomized or not)."

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? [Yes]  
"Limited high-level evidence prevents the development of robust management guidelines for CDH."

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? [NA]
"No quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis was performed."

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? [NA] 
"No assessment of publication bias was done as no meta-analysis was performed."

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? [No]
"No statement about conflict of interest is provided."

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
"This systematic review by the APSA Outcomes and Evidence-based Practice Committee attempted to delineate best-evidence recommendations for specific aspects of CDH care." 

P2. Provide a structured summary. [No]
"No structured abstract or summary is provided."

P3. Describe the rationale for the review. [Yes]  
"Variability in institutional practice patterns for CDH will likely pose a significant barrier to any further improvement in CDH outcomes. Thus, it is imperative that we dedicate efforts to design high quality studies that will inform the development of best practices for these infants."

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed. [Yes] 
"Our purpose was to systematically review the available evidence to provide recommendations regarding specific aspects of CDH management. In particular we focused on ventilator management, the treatment of pulmonary hypertension (PHTN), glucocorticoid use, mode and duration of ECMO, timing of repair, optimal technique for repair, and the use of prosthetic patches."

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists. [No] 
"No protocol is referenced."

P6. Specify study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility. [Yes]
"Studies that did not address the neonatal population were excluded, as were opinion pieces, case reports, and editorial review articles (other than systematic reviews or meta analyses)." 

P7. Describe information sources in the search. [Yes]
"Separate search terms were applied for each question using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. Searches were limited to articles published in the English language from January 1, 1980 through January 31, 2014."

P8. Present full electronic search strategy. [No]  
"The full search strategies are not provided."

P9. State the process for selecting studies. [Yes]  
"Two of the principal authors independently scanned all titles as a first screen after which selected abstracts and/or full-length papers were collected for further review. Articles were either included or excluded based on their relevance to the topic."

P10. Describe method of data extraction. [No]   
"The method of data extraction is not described."

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought. [No]
"The variables extracted are not explicitly listed and defined."

P12. Describe methods for assessing risk of bias. [No]   
"No method for assessing risk of bias is described, only level of evidence." 

P13. State the principal summary measures. [NA]
"No meta-analysis was performed."

P14-P23. Describe methods of combining/analyzing data. [NA] 
"No quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis was performed."

P24. Summarize the main findings. [Yes]
"Limited high-level evidence prevents the development of robust management guidelines for CDH."

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level. [Yes] 
"The quantity of high-level evidence was severely lacking, which precludes the identification of definitive best practices."

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results. [Yes]  
"Variability in institutional practice patterns for CDH will likely pose a significant barrier to any further improvement in CDH outcomes. Thus, it is imperative that we dedicate efforts to design high quality studies that will inform the development of best practices for these infants."

P27. Describe sources of funding. [No]
"No statement about sources of funding is provided."

Frongia

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review:

A1. [NA] The article does not mention an a priori design or protocol.

A2. [No] There is no mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction. The methods state that one reviewer performed screening and extraction which was then checked by two other reviewers. 

A3. [Yes] "The articles were included in this review if they met the following criteria: Population: Studies of humans aged 0–18 years. Intervention: Bianchi and STEP procedure, either alone or in combination."

A4. [No] There is no mention of searching for or including grey literature. 

A5. [No] No list of included/excluded studies is provided.

A6. [No] The characteristics of included studies are not provided in aggregated form, only described narratively in the results. 

A7. [No] There is no mention of quality assessment of included studies.

A8. [NA] This question is not applicable since no quality assessment was performed.

A9. [NA] There was no meta-analysis performed.

A10. [NA] There was no meta-analysis performed.  

A11. [No] There is no mention of conflicts of interest or study funding.

P1. [Yes] The report is identified as a systematic review in the title.

P2. [No] No structured abstract is provided.

P3. [Yes] The rationale for the review is described in the introduction in context of existing knowledge.

P4. [No] The review questions are not explicitly stated in PICOS format. 

P5. [No] No review protocol is mentioned.

P6. [Yes] Inclusion criteria related to population, interventions, and outcomes are described.

P7. [Yes] Literature search methods are described including databases searched.

P8. [No] No full electronic search strategy is presented.

P9. [Yes] The process of study screening and selection is described. 

P10. [No] There are no details provided on data extraction methods.

P11. [No] The variables for which data were sought are not explicitly listed.

P12. [No] No methods for assessing risk of bias are described.

P13. [NA] No meta-analysis was performed.

P14. [NA] No meta-analysis was performed.

P15. [NA] No meta-analysis was performed.

P16. [NA] No additional analyses were performed.

P17. [Yes] Numbers of studies screened and included are provided in a flow diagram. 

P18. [No] No table of study characteristics is provided.

P19. [No] No assessment of risk of bias is presented. 

P20. [No] No summary data and effect sizes are presented for each study.

P21. [NA] No meta-analysis was performed.

P22. [NA] No assessment of risk of bias across studies was performed.

P23. [NA] No additional analyses were performed.

P24. [No] No explicit summary of findings and implications is provided.

P25. [No] Limitations are not discussed.

P26. [No] No general interpretation of results or implications are provided.

P27. [No] No mention of sources of funding or support.

Esposito

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached full text:

A1. No explicit mention of an a priori design. "[No]" 

A2. No mention of duplicate study selection and data extraction. "[No]"

A3. Stated that PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline databases were searched. MESH terms not stated. Supplementary search methods not described. "[No]"

A4. No mention of searching for grey literature. "[No]" 

A5. Provided a reference list of included and excluded studies. "[Yes]"

A6. Provided summary data on participants, interventions, and outcomes in table format. "[Yes]" 

A7. Did not mention assessing quality/risk of bias in included studies. "[No]" 

A8. Did not assess quality/risk of bias of included studies. "[NA]"

A9. Did not conduct meta-analysis. "[NA]" 

A10. Did not assess publication bias. "[NA]" 

A11. Did not report on conflicts of interest. "[No]"

P1. Identified as a systematic review. "[Yes]"  

P2. Provided structured abstract with background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, outcomes, and conclusions. "[Yes]"

P3. Described rationale for review. "[Yes]"

P4. Stated objective was to compare laparoscopic vs open repair, included PICOS elements. "[Yes]"

P5. Did not mention a review protocol. "[No]"

P6. Described eligibility criteria including study characteristics and participant characteristics. "[Yes]" 

P7. Stated databases searched and date last searched. "[Yes]" 

P8. Did not provide full search strategy. "[No]"

P9. Described process of study screening and selection. "[Yes]"

P10. Did not describe data extraction methods. "[No]" 

P11. Did not explicitly list variables extracted. "[No]" 

P12. Did not describe risk of bias assessment. "[No]"

P13. Stated using tests like chi-squared and Fisher's exact test for summary measures. "[Yes]"

P14. Did not conduct meta-analysis. "[NA]"

P15. Did not assess risk of bias across studies. "[NA]"

P16. Did not conduct additional analyses. "[NA]" 

P17. Provided number of records identified and included/excluded with flow diagram. "[Yes]"

P18. Provided citations for included studies. "[Yes]" 

P19. Did not provide risk of bias for individual studies. "[No]" 

P20. Provided summary data for outcomes in tables. "[Yes]" 

P21. Did not conduct meta-analysis. "[NA]"

P22. Did not assess risk of bias across studies. "[NA]" 

P23. Did not conduct additional analyses. "[NA]"

P24. Summarized main findings and conclusions. "[Yes]" 

P25. Discussed some limitations of included studies. "[Yes]"

P26. Provided general interpretation of results. "[Yes]" 

P27. Did not report on sources of funding. "[No]"

Kapralik

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
"We used a Dephi-like method [17] to determine the issues of greatest concern to pediatric surgeons regarding the surgical management of CPAM."
Provides details on the a priori design. [Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
"Two independent reviewers conducted all article screening."
"One reviewer extracted all data from the included studies, and another checked it for accuracy and completeness."
Duplicate study selection and data extraction done. [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
"We conducted an electronic literature search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 onwards), EMBASE (1980 onwards), CINAHL (1982 onwards), and PubMed (1966 onwards) in January 2015." 
Searched multiple databases. [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?  
No mention of including or excluding based on publication status. [No] 

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Figure 1 shows the flow diagram with included and excluded studies. [Yes]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Table 1 provides characteristics of the included studies. [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
"We used the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) to assess the quality of the included studies."
Quality assessed using MINORS tool. [Yes]  

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
The quality scores are reported in Table 1 but not mentioned in the conclusions. [No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?  
Not combined beyond narrative synthesis. [NA]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
No assessment of publication bias mentioned. [No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? 
No conflict of interest statement. [No]

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
"We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing elective resection versus expectant management."

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. [Yes]
Provides structured abstract with background, objectives, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal, results, conclusions. No registration number.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. [Yes]
Introduction describes the rationale and controversy around the management of CPAM.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). [Yes] 
Clear objective stated: "to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published literature comparing the postoperative outcomes associated with elective surgery (while asymptomatic) versus those following surgery as part of expectant management (i.e., performing surgery only upon the development of symptoms) in children born with asymptomatic CPAM lesions."

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. [No]
No mention of protocol.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. [Yes]
Eligibility criteria described in methods.

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. [Yes] 
Databases, dates, and supplementary search described.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. [No]
Search strategy not provided.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). [Yes]
Screening and selection process described and depicted in Figure 1.

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. [Yes]
"One reviewer extracted all data from the included studies, and another checked it for accuracy and completeness." 

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. [Yes]  
Outcomes described in methods.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. [Yes]
MINORS used to assess quality/risk of bias. 

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). [Yes]
OR and MD described.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. [NA] 
No meta-analysis beyond narrative synthesis.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). [No]
No assessment of publication bias or other biases mentioned.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. [NA]
No additional analyses.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. [Yes]
Figure 1 shows PRISMA flow diagram.

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. [Yes] 
Table 1 provides characteristics of included studies.

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12). [Yes]
Table 1 provides MINORS quality assessment for each study.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. [Yes]
Results summarized narratively and in forest plots.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. [NA]
No meta-analysis beyond narrative synthesis. 

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15). [NA] 
No assessment of publication bias or other biases.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]). [NA]
No additional analyses.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). [Yes]
Main findings summarized in discussion and conclusions.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). [Yes]
Limitations discussed.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. [Yes] 
Results interpreted and compared to other studies. Suggestions for future research provided.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. [No]
No statement on funding or support.

Peycelon

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA 2009 assessments for the attached systematic review:

# AMSTAR
A1. [Yes] "Our review focuses on the data from the past five years from 2009 to 2014 to try to delineate the new upcoming events in the field of MIS in childhood cancer." The objectives and scope are predefined.
A2. [No] No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.
A3. [Yes] "References for this review were identified by PubMed searches using appropriate search terms for each section (“minimally invasive surgery,” “laparoscopy,” “thoracoscopy,” “childhood/children/pediatric cancer”). Articles were also identified by searching the author’s own files." PubMed search + supplementary strategies used.
A4. [NA] Review does not mention including or excluding based on publication status. 
A5. [No] No list of included/excluded studies provided.
A6. [No] No summary table with characteristics of included studies.
A7. [No] No assessment of quality of included studies.
A8. [NA] Not applicable since A7 is no.
A9. [NA] No meta-analysis performed.
A10. [NA] No meta-analysis performed.
A11. [No] No mention of conflicts of interest.

# PRISMA 2009
P1. [Yes] "Review Article" 
P2. [No] No structured summary provided.
P3. [Yes] Gap and rationale described in introduction.  
P4. [No] No explicit PICOS statement.
P5. [NA] No protocol mentioned.
P6. [Partial] Inclusion criteria partially described in methods. No mention of exclusions or study characteristics.
P7. [Yes] Information sources described in methods.
P8. [No] No search strategy provided.
P9. [No] No description of study selection process.
P10. [No] No data extraction methods described.  
P11. [NA] No list of variables sought.
P12. [No] No assessment of risk of bias mentioned.
P13. [NA] No meta-analysis.
P14. [NA] No quantitative synthesis. 
P15. [NA] No assessment of bias across studies.
P16. [NA] No additional analyses mentioned.
P17. [No] No flow diagram or details on screening process.
P18. [No] No table with study characteristics.
P19. [NA] No assessment of risk of bias.
P20. [No] No forest plots or study data presented.
P21. [NA] No meta-analysis.
P22. [NA] No assessment of bias across studies.  
P23. [NA] No additional analyses.
P24. [Partial] Main findings summarized but strength of evidence not discussed.
P25. [No] No limitations discussed.
P26. [Yes] General interpretation and future implications described in conclusion.
P27. [No] No mention of funding sources.

Chang

LLM response

Regarding AMSTAR

A1. "Patients with age greater than 18 years undergoing standard laparoscopic or LESS surgery, undergoing surgery for ureteral stricture, with horseshoe kidney, or with vesicoureteral reflux were excluded for analysis." [Yes] The eligibility criteria are pre-established before conducting the review.

A2. "Two authors of this paper, Hsu and Chang, independently searched and reviewed the articles. When discrepancies occurred over the results, discussions with a third author (Yang) were made to reach a consensus." [Yes] Duplicate study selection and data extraction were performed. 

A3. "We searched PubMed® for comparative studies (from January 1990 to 2014 September) that compared the efficacy and safety of robotic versus open pyeloplasty. Searches were limited to studies published in English. We used the following keywords: robotic, pyeloplasty, ureteropelvic junction obstruction, children, and pediatric." [Yes] Multiple databases were searched and search terms are provided.

A4. No mention of screening for grey literature. [No] Grey literature was not searched for or mentioned.

A5. No list of included/excluded studies is provided. [No] The list of included and excluded studies is not presented. 

A6. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of included studies. [Yes] Study characteristics are adequately described.

A7. No quality assessment of included studies is described. [No] The quality of included studies was not assessed.

A8. No quality assessment was done, so it couldn't be incorporated into conclusions. [NA] Quality assessment was not performed.

A9. No meta-analysis of effect estimates was done. [NA] The results were not combined quantitatively.

A10. No assessment of publication bias. [No] Publication bias was not assessed. 

A11. No statement about conflicts of interest. [No] Potential conflicts of interest were not reported.

Regarding PRISMA:

P1. The review is identified as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title. [Yes] 

P2. An abstract is provided summarizing the review. [Yes]

P3. The rationale and context for the review are described in the Introduction. [Yes] 

P4. The participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes are described but no specific PICOS is provided. [Partial Yes]

P5. No protocol is mentioned. [No] 

P6. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are provided. [Yes] 

P7. Search methods are described. [Yes]

P8. The full search strategy is not provided for any database. [No]

P9. The study selection process is described and illustrated in a flow diagram. [Yes] 

P10. Data extraction methods are described. [Yes] 

P11. Outcomes extracted are listed in the data extraction tables. [Yes]

P12. No risk of bias assessment is described. [No] 

P13. Summary measures are described in the analysis section. [Yes]

P14. Methods for combining study results are described. [Yes] 

P15. No assessment of risk of bias across studies. [NA] 

P16. No additional analyses are described. [NA]

P17. The study selection process is shown in a flow diagram with reasons for exclusions. [Yes]

P18. Study characteristics are presented in Table 1. [Yes] 

P19. No assessment of risk of bias for individual studies. [No]

P20. Results for each analysis are presented in forest plots. [Yes]

P21. Results of meta-analyses are presented. [Yes] 

P22. No assessment of risk of bias across studies. [NA]

P23. No additional analyses conducted. [NA]

P24. Main findings are summarized in the Discussion. [Yes]

P25. Limitations are discussed. [Yes]

P26. Conclusions and implications are discussed. [Yes]

P27. No statement about sources of funding or support. [No]

In summary, the review adequately addressed some but not all AMSTAR and PRISMA items. The main limitations were the lack of grey literature searching, quality assessment, and consideration of biases.

Berger

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the systematic review:

A1. [No] "All publications in peer-reviewed journals accessible online via PubMed written in the English, German, or Spanish language." Does not mention a protocol or pre-determined objectives.
A2. [NA] Systematic review does not include meta-analysis, so duplicate study selection/data extraction not applicable.
A3. [Yes] "The current literature was screened for publications regarding the application of Mitomycin C in esophageal stenosis and stricture with special emphasis on pediatric data." Comprehensive search described. 
A4. [No] Does not state whether grey literature was searched.
A5. [NA] Systematic review does not include meta-analysis, so list of included/excluded studies not applicable.
A6. [Yes] Table 2 provides characteristics of included cases such as age, etiology, description of stricture.
A7. [NA] Does not assess quality of included studies.
A8. [NA] Does not assess quality of included studies.
A9. [NA] No meta-analysis performed.
A10. [NA] No meta-analysis performed.  
A11. [NA] Does not report on sources of support/funding.

P1. [Yes] Identified as systematic review in title.
P2. [No] Does not contain structured abstract with all elements described.
P3. [Yes] Provides background and rationale in introduction.
P4. [NA] Does not specify PICOS, as systematic review of case reports/series.
P5. [No] Does not mention a protocol.
P6. [Yes] Specifies characteristics like age, etiology, stricture details in Table 2.  
P7. [Yes] Describes literature search in methods.
P8. [No] Does not provide full search strategy.
P9. [Yes] Describes study selection in methods.
P10. [NA] Does not describe data extraction, as synthesizes case reports narratively.
P11. [NA] Does not define variables, as synthesizes case reports narratively.  
P12. [NA] Does not assess risk of bias in included studies.
P13. [NA] No quantitative synthesis performed.
P14. [NA] No quantitative synthesis performed.
P15. [NA] No assessment of publication bias.
P16. [NA] No additional analyses like sensitivity analyses.
P17. [Yes] Provides details on number of cases identified and included.
P18. [Yes] Provides characteristics of included cases in Table 2.
P19. [NA] Does not assess risk of bias in included studies.
P20. [NA] No quantitative synthesis performed.
P21. [NA] No quantitative synthesis performed.  
P22. [NA] No assessment of bias across studies.
P23. [NA] No additional analyses conducted.
P24. [Yes] Summarizes main findings and discusses limitations in discussion.
P25. [Yes] Discusses limitations at study and review level in discussion.
P26. [Yes] Provides interpretation of results and implications in discussion.
P27. [No] Does not report on sources of funding/support.

Jia

LLM response

Here are my assessments for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items based on the provided full text:

A1. [Yes] 
"An electronic literature search of all articles from inception to February 2009 was conducted using Medline, the Cochrane Library, SCI, EMBASE, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database"
Clear search conducted.

A2. [Yes]  
"Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators, and discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus."
Duplicate data extraction done. 

A3. [Yes]
"An electronic literature search of all articles from inception to February 2009 was conducted using Medline, the Cochrane Library, SCI, EMBASE, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, using the following text and keywords in combination both as MeSH terms and text words: “pyloric stenosis”, “pylorostenosis”, “pyloristenosis” and “pyloromyotomy” in combination with “laparoscop*”."
Multiple databases searched with keywords.

A4. [Unclear]
No mention of grey literature or unpublished literature search.

A5. [Yes]
"3 studies totaling 492 infants were finally eligible for this study (Figure 1)." 
Included/excluded studies shown in flow diagram.

A6. [Yes] 
"Baseline characteristics of included trials are summarized in Table 1."
Table 1 provides characteristics of included studies.

A7. [Yes]  
"Using the quality assessment instrument of the Cochrane Handbook version 5.0.1 [11], we assigned ‘Yes’ for low risk of bias, ‘No’ for high risk of bias, or ‘Unclear’ for uncertain risk of bias."
Quality assessed systematically. 

A8. [Yes]
"All studies described an adequate random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding. After retrieving included articles, no incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting were found (Table 2). Therefore, the magnitude of LP compared with OP used in this systematic review was high quality with a low risk of bias."
Quality of studies considered in conclusions.

A9. [Yes]
"Heterogeneity among studies was estimated by the use of the I2 statistic... Potential causes of heterogeneity were explored by carrying out sensitivity and subgroup analyses if available."
Heterogeneity assessed and random effects model used when present.

A10. [No] 
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

A11. [No]
No mention of conflicts of interest or funding sources.

P1. [Yes]
"Open versus Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy for Pyloric Stenosis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials"
Identified as a meta-analysis.

P2. [Yes] 
Abstract provides structured summary.

P3. [Yes]
Introduction describes rationale and what is known.

P4. [Yes]
Objectives specify interventions, comparisons, and outcomes. 

P5. [No]
No mention of a review protocol.

P6. [Yes]
Inclusion criteria describe study characteristics.

P7. [Yes]  
Methods describe literature sources and dates searched.

P8. [No]
Search strategy not provided.

P9. [Yes] 
Flow diagram shows study selection process.

P10. [Yes]
"Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators, and discrepancies were discussed to reach consensus."
Duplicate data extraction described.

P11. [Yes]
Outcomes of interest described. 

P12. [Yes] 
Quality assessment methods described.

P13. [Yes]
"Results are expressed as SMD for continuous variables and OR for dichotomous outcomes"
Summary measures described.

P14. [NA]
No meta-analysis done for this review.

P15. [NA] 
No meta-analysis done.

P16. [NA]
No additional analyses done.

P17. [Yes]
Flow diagram shows numbers at each stage.

P18. [Yes]
Table 1 shows study characteristics.

P19. [Yes] 
Table 2 shows risk of bias assessment.

P20. [Yes]
Results show summary data and effect estimates.

P21. [NA]
No meta-analysis done.

P22. [NA]  
No assessment of bias across studies.

P23. [NA]
No additional analyses.

P24. [Yes] 
Conclusions summarize main findings.

P25. [Yes]
Limitations discussed.

P26. [Yes]
Conclusions put results in context of other evidence.

P27. [No]
No mention of funding sources.

Nataraja

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the given systematic review:

A1. [Yes]
- "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used in the formulation of the systematic review and meta-analysis."
- States that PRISMA guidelines were followed, which require an a priori protocol.

A2. [Unclear] 
- No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. [Yes]
- "A review of the literature was performed to identify all published evidence relating to the development of a pediatric IAA postoperatively after either LA or OA." 
- Table 1 lists the databases searched and search terms used.

A4. [No]
- No mention of searching for unpublished or grey literature.

A5. [No]
- No list of included/excluded studies provided.

A6. [Yes] 
- Table 3 summarizes key characteristics of the included studies.

A7. [No]
- The quality of included studies was not assessed.

A8. [NA]
- Quality of studies was not assessed, so this item is not applicable.

A9. [Yes]
- "Contingency tables were designed for each of the outcome measures, and data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test."
- Appropriate statistical methods used for meta-analysis.

A10. [Yes]
- Funnel plots were used to assess publication bias (Figure 5).

A11. [No]
- No mention of conflicts of interest or study funding.

P1. [Yes]
- "Comparison of Intraabdominal Abscess Formation Following Laparoscopic and Open Appendicectomies in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"
- Title identifies it as a systematic review and meta-analysis.

P2. [Yes]
- Structured abstract provided with background, objectives, eligibility criteria, data sources, synthesis methods, results, and conclusions. 

P3. [Yes]
- Introduction section describes rationale and context.

P4. [Yes] 
- Objective clearly stated along with inclusion/exclusion criteria defining population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes.

P5. [No]
- No mention of a review protocol.

P6. [Yes]
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria specify eligible study characteristics and populations. 

P7. [Yes]
- Table 1 lists literature sources searched and date ranges covered.

P8. [No] 
- No full search strategy provided.

P9. [Yes]
- Study selection process described and depicted in Figure 1 flow diagram. 

P10. [Unclear]
- No description of data extraction methods.

P11. [Yes]
- Outcomes of interest clearly defined.

P12. [No] 
- No assessment of risk of bias described.

P13. [Yes]
- Odds ratios and 95% CIs used as summary measures.

P14-P16. [NA]
- Not applicable since no meta-analysis was performed.

P17. [Yes] 
- Numbers screened, eligible, and included provided in Figure 1. Exclusions not explicitly reasoned.

P18. [Yes]
- Table 3 provides key characteristics of included studies. 

P19. [No]
- Did not assess risk of bias for individual studies.

P20-P23. [NA] 
- Not applicable since no meta-analysis was performed.

P24. [Yes]
- Main findings summarized in discussion section.

P25. [Yes] 
- Limitations described in discussion.

P26. [Yes]  
- Results interpreted in context of other evidence and implications described.

P27. [No]
- No mention of funding sources or conflicts of interest.

Guo

LLM response

Here is my assessment of the methodological quality using AMSTAR and reporting quality using PRISMA for the given systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
"Since the current study was a systemic review and meta-analysis based on the published articles, the consents of patients and approval of Internal Review Boards were not included." [No]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
"The citations and/or abstracts or full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by three reviewers (GJ, LZL and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus." [Yes]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
"All published studies until August 31, 2010 were searched with the terms ‘laparoscopic orchiopexy’, ‘open orchiopexy’, and ‘children’ from Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases." [Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion? 
No mention of searching for grey literature. [No]

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
Table 1 provides characteristics of included studies. The number of excluded studies is mentioned in the text but references are not provided. [No] 

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
Table 1 and 2 provide aggregated characteristics of the included studies. [Yes]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
"Each included article was appraised by three reviewers (GJ, LZL and TQS), who assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies independently. A critical review checklist of the Dutch Cochrane Centre was used to appraise the RCTs." [Yes]

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? [NA]
No assessment of study quality is presented.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
Statistical heterogeneity was assessed and appropriate meta-analysis models were used based on I2 values. [Yes] 

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Funnel plots were generated and assessed. [Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? [No]
No statement on conflicts of interest.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
"In this study, we reviewed the current literature and performed a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare the LO and OO..."

P2. Provide a structured summary. [No] 
No structured abstract provided.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. [Yes]
The introduction section provides background and rationale.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). [No]
The objective is stated but no explicit PICOS.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed. [No] 
No protocol mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility. [Partial]
Inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in the methods.

P7. Describe all information sources in the search and date last searched. [Yes]
Databases, date range, and search terms are provided. 

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used. [No]
Search strategy not provided.

P9. State the process for selecting studies. [Yes] 
Study selection process is described. 

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports. [Yes]
"Three reviewers (GJ, LZL and TQS) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article with a predefined data extraction form."

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought. [Partial] 
Outcomes extracted are listed but not defined.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies. [Yes]
The Dutch Cochrane risk of bias tool was used. 

P13. State the principal summary measures. [Yes] 
"Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and ORs were used for the analysis of continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively."

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies. [NA]
No quantitative synthesis performed.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies. [NA] 
No assessment of publication bias presented.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses. [NA]
No additional analyses mentioned.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage. [Yes]
The study selection process is described and depicted in a flow diagram. 

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted. [Yes] 
Table 1 and 2 present study characteristics.

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study. [No]
No assessment of individual study bias presented.

P20. For all outcomes considered, present data for each study. [Yes]  
Table 2 presents outcome data for each study. 

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done. [NA]
No meta-analysis performed.

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies. [NA] 
No assessment of publication bias presented.

P23. Give results of additional analyses. [NA]
No additional analyses mentioned. 

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome. [Yes]
The discussion summarizes the main findings.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level and at review-level. [Yes]
Limitations are discussed.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. [Yes]
Results are interpreted in the context of previous literature.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review. [No] 
No statement on sources of funding.

Romao

LLM response

Here are my assessments for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items based on the attached full text:

A1. "[No]" - No protocol or pre-determined objectives mentioned.

A2. "[No]" - No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction. 

A3. "[Yes]" - Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL. Also checked references and cross-references.

A4. "[No]" - No mention of searching for grey literature.

A5. "[No]" - No list of included/excluded studies provided.

A6. "[Yes]" - Table 1 provides characteristics of included studies.

A7. "[No]" - No assessment of quality of included studies.

A8. "[NA]" - Not applicable since quality of studies not assessed.

A9. "[Yes]" - Heterogeneity assessed and random effects model used in meta-analysis. 

A10. "[No]" - No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

A11. "[No]" - No statement about conflicts of interest.

P1. "[Yes]" - Identified as systematic review and meta-analysis in title.

P2. "[Yes]" - Structured abstract provided. 

P3. "[Yes]" - Rationale described in introduction.

P4. "[Yes]" - Research questions stated in introduction. 

P5. "[No]" - No review protocol mentioned.

P6. "[Yes]" - Inclusion criteria described.

P7. "[Yes]" - Literature search methods described.

P8. "[No]" - No full search strategy provided.

P9. "[No]" - Study selection process not described. 

P10. "[No]" - Data extraction methods not described.

P11. "[Yes]" - Outcomes described. 

P12. "[No]" - No risk of bias assessment mentioned. 

P13. "[Yes]" - Odds ratio presented as summary measure.

P14. "[NA]" - Not applicable since only 1 meta-analysis.

P15. "[NA]" - Not applicable since no assessment of bias across studies.

P16. "[NA]" - No additional analyses mentioned.

P17. "[No]" - No flow diagram of study selection provided. 

P18. "[Yes]" - Study characteristics presented in Table 1.

P19. "[NA]" - Not applicable since no risk of bias assessment.

P20. "[Yes]" - Forest plots presented with effect sizes.

P21. "[Yes]" - Confidence intervals and heterogeneity presented.

P22. "[NA]" - Not applicable since no bias assessment.

P23. "[NA]" - No additional analyses.

P24. "[Yes]" - Main findings summarized in discussion. 

P25. "[Yes]" - Limitations discussed.

P26. "[Yes]" - Results interpreted in context of other evidence.

P27. "[No]" - No statement about funding sources.

Elyas

LLM response

Here are the relevant quotes, explanations, and responses for the AMSTAR items:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
- "We evaluated whether single stage or 2-stage FSO results in greater testicular viability in children younger than 18 years with intra-abdominal testes. The primary outcome was testicular viability, which was defined as adequate postoperative testicular size and position in the scrotum." (Introduction)
- States primary outcome was testicular viability. 
[Yes]

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
- No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.
- Not reported.
[No]

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
- Searched multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane databases), clinical trial registries, and gray literature. Search strategy provided. References of selected articles hand searched. 
- Comprehensive search including gray literature and reference lists.
[Yes]

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?  
- No mention of including or excluding based on publication status.
- Publication status not specified as inclusion/exclusion criteria.
[No] 

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
- Flow diagram provided showing numbers excluded at each stage but no specific references listed.
- Flow diagram but no actual reference list.
[No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? 
- Table summarizes quality assessment results but no summary of study characteristics. Individual study data extracted in text. 
- Study characteristics not provided in aggregated form.
[No]

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
- Quality assessment using instrument summarized in table. Assessed items like study design, follow-up, outcomes reported.
- Quality assessed but no specific tool mentioned.
[Yes] 

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
- No mention of study quality in forming conclusions. Meta-analysis results focused on.
- Study quality not incorporated into conclusions.
[No]

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? 
- Meta-analysis conducted. Heterogeneity assessed with I^2 statistic and forest plots. 
- Appropriate meta-analytic methods.
[Yes]

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
- Funnel plot done to assess publication bias. 
- Publication bias assessed.
[Yes]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? 
- No conflict of interest statement.
- Conflict of interest not reported.
[No]

Here are the relevant quotes, explanations, and responses for the PRISMA items:

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
- Title states "A Systematic Review".
- Identified as systematic review in title. 
[Yes]

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
- Structured abstract provided with all relevant sections.
- Structured abstract included.
[Yes]

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
- Introduction describes rationale and need for review.
- Rationale described.
[Yes]

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). 
- Research question and inclusion criteria stated in introduction.
- PICOS criteria described.
[Yes]

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
- No mention of review protocol.
- Review protocol not mentioned.
[No]

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
- Eligibility criteria described in methods.
- Eligibility criteria specified.
[Yes]

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. 
- Information sources described in methods.
- Information sources described.
[Yes] 

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
- Full search strategy provided for MEDLINE. 
- Search strategy provided.
[Yes]

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
- Study selection process described in methods and shown in flow diagram.
- Selection process described.
[Yes]

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
- States data extracted independently by each author. Contacted authors for missing data.
- Data extraction process described. 
[Yes]

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
- No list of specific data sought. Outcomes described.
- Data elements not predefined.
[No] 

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
- Quality assessment done but no specific risk of bias or how it would be used described.
- Risk of bias assessment not described.
[No]

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
- Pooled estimate of success rates and odds ratio. 
- Summary measures stated.
[Yes]

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. 
- Meta-analytic methods described. Heterogeneity assessed with I^2.
- Data synthesis methods described.
[Yes]

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
- Funnel plot done for publication bias.
- Publication bias assessed.
[Yes]

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
- No additional analyses mentioned.
- No other analyses done.
[NA]

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
- Flow diagram provided showing numbers at each stage.
- Flow diagram included.
[Yes]

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
- No table summarizing study characteristics. Individual study data extracted in text.
- Study characteristics not summarized.
[No]

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
- No risk of bias assessment for individual studies.
- Risk of bias not presented.
[No] 

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
- Forest plots presented with effect estimates. No individual study data provided.
- Forest plots but no study data.
[No]

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
- Results of meta-analyses presented with CIs and I^2 values.
- Meta-analysis results reported. 
[Yes]

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).  
- No assessment of risk of bias across studies.
- Risk of bias across studies not done.
[NA]

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
- No additional analyses.
- No other analyses conducted.
[NA]

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
- Conclusions summarize main findings and relevance.
- Main findings summarized.
[Yes]

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
- Limitations discussed including study design, language, publication bias.
- Limitations discussed.
[Yes]

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
- Results interpreted in context of previous research. Future research implications described.
- Results interpreted and future research discussed.
[Yes]

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 
- No funding sources reported.
- Funding not reported.
[No]

I have responded to all AMSTAR and PRISMA items for this systematic review. Please let me know if I can clarify or expand on any part of my assessment.

Lansdale

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the given systematic review:

A1. "[Yes]"
- "We have therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compares survival, CDH recurrence risk, operative time and prosthetic patch usage between CDH neonates whose repair was approached by MIS and those where it was undertaken by open surgery." (Introduction)
- The research question and inclusion criteria are clearly established before conducting the review.

A2. "[Yes]" 
- "Two independent reviewers reviewed all studies in abstract form." (Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection)
- There were at least two independent data extractors.

A3. "[Yes]"
- "MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1980 to present) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases were searched" (Information Sources and Search Technique)  
- "Relevant conference proceedings were also searched for abstracts of appropriate studies." (Information Sources and Search Technique)
- At least two electronic sources were searched along with supplementary strategies.

A4. "[No]"
- No mention of searching for gray literature.

A5. "[Yes]"
- Figure 2 shows a flow chart with studies included and excluded.

A6. "[Yes]" 
- Table 1 provides aggregated data on the participants, interventions and outcomes.

A7. "[No]"
- The quality of included studies was not formally assessed. 

A8. "[NA]"

A9. "[NA]" 

A10. "[No]"
- Publication bias was not assessed.

A11. "[No]"
- Sources of funding are not reported for the review or the included studies.

P1. "[Yes]"
- The title identifies it as a systematic review and meta-analysis.

P2. "[Yes]" 
- The abstract provides background, objectives, eligibility criteria, data sources, synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.

P3. "[Yes]"
- The introduction describes the rationale in context of current knowledge.

P4. "[Yes]"
- The introduction states the questions addressed regarding participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

P5. "[No]"
- No protocol is mentioned.

P6. "[Yes]"
- The eligibility criteria describe included study characteristics. 

P7. "[Yes]" 
- The information sources section describes the databases searched and date last searched.

P8. "[No]"
- The full search strategy is not provided.

P9. "[Yes]"
- The study selection process is described and depicted in a flow diagram. 

P10. "[Yes]"  
- The data collection process is described.

P11. "[Yes]"
- Outcomes sought are listed in the Introduction.

P12. "[No]"
- Risk of bias assessment is not described.

P13. "[Yes]"
- The outcome measures are listed.

P14. "[NA]"

P15. "[NA]"

P16. "[NA]"

P17. "[Yes]" 
- The flow diagram depicts studies screened, assessed, and reasons for exclusion.

P18. "[No]"
- Study characteristics are not presented.

P19. "[No]" 

P20. "[Yes]"
- Results are presented with summary data and effect estimates.

P21. "[NA]"

P22. "[NA]"

P23. "[NA]"

P24. "[Yes]"
- Main findings and limitations are summarized. 

P25. "[Yes]"
- Limitations are discussed.

P26. "[Yes]"
- Results are interpreted in context of other evidence.

P27. "[No]"
- No funding sources reported.

Black

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”
[No] No protocol or pre-specified objectives are mentioned.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.  
[Yes] "Two authors independently screened the abstracts and extraction was verified by a second author (JAB and RKS)."

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).
[Yes] "The indexed reference libraries EMBASE and Medline were searched between January 1955 and January 2013 using the search terms presented in Table 1, using mapped and exploded terms. Additionally, the references of all included studies, the Cochrane Library and the titles of papers published in the journal Obesity Surgery from January 1992 till January 2013 were searched."

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit. 
[Yes] "Only papers written in English were retrieved." This indicates they did not exclude based on publication status, though they did exclude based on language.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”
[No] No list of excluded studies is provided.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.
[Yes] Table 2 provides relevant characteristics of the included studies. 

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).
[No] The quality of included studies was not assessed.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.
[NA] Scientific quality was not assessed.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.
[Yes] "Findings from the meta-analysis of change in BMI at 12 months post-operatively are shown in Fig. 2. The average weighted mean BMI difference from baseline to 1 year was -13.5 kg m-2 (95% confidence interval [CI] -15.1, -11.9). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 76.1% and P < 0.001), largely because of the differences among surgery types and populations." A random effects model was used.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.
[No] No assessment of publication bias was mentioned. 

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.
[No] No conflict of interest statement was provided for the included studies.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
[Yes] The report is identified as a systematic review and meta-analysis in the title.

Quotes: 
"Bariatric surgery for obese children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis"

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
[Yes] A structured abstract is provided with background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, synthesis methods, results, limitations, and conclusions. No registration number is provided.

Quotes:
"A systematic literature search (1955–2013) was performed to examine adjustable gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or biliopancreatic diversions operations among obese children and adolescents."

"In total, 637 patients from 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There were significant decreases in BMI at 1 year (average weighted mean BMI difference: -13.5 kg m-2; 95% confidence interval [CI] -14.1 to -11.9)." 

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
[Yes] Previous systematic reviews on this topic are described in the introduction and discussion.

Quotes:
"Two previous systematic reviews of the literature showed that sustained weight loss could be achieved after bariatric surgery, but reporting on related co-morbidities and complications was sparse, and surgery types were poorly differentiated (16,17)."

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
[No] No explicit PICOS statement is provided.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
[No] No protocol is mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
[Yes] Study characteristics and eligibility criteria are described in the methods.

Quotes: 
"Studies were included if (i) they assessed BMI before and a minimum of six months after individuals predominately received AGB, RYGB, BPD or SG and (ii) the mean age of the population was between 6 and 18 years at study entry (18)."

"Only papers written in English were retrieved."

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
[Yes] Information sources are described:
"The indexed reference libraries EMBASE and Medline were searched between January 1955 and January 2013 using the search terms presented in Table 1, using mapped and exploded terms. Additionally, the references of all included studies, the Cochrane Library and the titles of papers published in the journal Obesity Surgery from January 1992 till January 2013 were searched."

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
[Yes] The full search strategy for EMBASE and Medline is provided in Table 1.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
[Yes] The study selection process is described and outlined in the flow diagram (Fig. 1).

Quotes:
"Two authors independently screened the abstracts and extraction was verified by a second author (JAB and RKS)."

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
[Partial] Data extraction by two independent authors is mentioned but no other details are provided.

Quotes:
"Two authors independently screened the abstracts and extraction was verified by a second author (JAB and RKS)."

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
[No] The variables extracted are not listed.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
[No] Risk of bias assessment is not described.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
[Yes] Mean difference in BMI was the summary measure.

Quotes: 
"Findings from the meta-analysis of change in BMI at 12 months post-operatively are shown in Fig. 2. The average weighted mean BMI difference from baseline to 1 year was -13.5 kg m-2 (95% confidence interval [CI] -15.1, -11.9)."

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. 
[Yes] The methods are described:
"For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions."

And I2 values are provided.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
[No] No assessment of risk of bias is described.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
[No] No additional analyses are described as pre-specified.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
[Yes] A flow diagram is provided detailing the number of studies at each stage (Fig. 1).

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. 
[Yes] Table 2 presents relevant characteristics of the included studies along with citations.

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
[No] No risk of bias assessment is presented.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
[Yes] For the primary outcome of BMI change, summary data and forest plots are presented (Fig. 2). Data on harms/complications is summarized narratively and in Table 3.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
[Yes] Results of the meta-analyses are presented with confidence intervals and I2 values (Fig. 2).

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
[NA] No assessment of risk of bias was performed.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
[NA] No additional analyses are described.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
[Yes] The main findings are summarized in the conclusion:
"Bariatric surgery in adolescents results in similar short-term weight outcomes to adults, with RYGB producing the greatest weight loss with the most robust evidence base."

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
[Yes] Limitations are described in the discussion section.

Quotes:
"In the absence of RCT data, observational studies are likely to continue to be the main source of evidence for bariatric adolescent surgery. Many studies are reported in abstracts from obesity conferences, but are not submitted for publication as full papers in scientific journals."

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
[Yes] The results are interpreted in the context of previous reviews and adult studies in the discussion. Future research implications are described. 

Quotes:
"Current guidelines suggest that paediatric-adolescent bariatric care should be handled within the controlled and restricted setting of a multidisciplinary team. However, long-term, prospectively designed studies, with clear inclusion criteria and reporting of effects, side effects, complications and co-morbidity resolution, alongside measures of HRQol, are needed to more firmly establish the harms and benefits of bariatric surgery in children and adolescents."

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 
[No] No sources of funding or support are described.

In summary, the authors reported on 16 out of 27 PRISMA items. The items that were not adequately reported included: lack of protocol, no assessment of risk of bias, no pre-specified analyses, no list of excluded studies, no description of data extraction, no list of extracted variables, no conflict of interest statement for included studies, and no statement about funding sources. Overall, this review provides a helpful systematic overview of the evidence on bariatric surgery for obesity in adolescents, but adherence to reporting guidelines could be improved.

Alzahem

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.” 
[No] No a priori design or protocol was mentioned.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.
[Yes] "Retrieved articles were assessed for eligibility and data on patients, intervention, control, outcomes and methodological quality were abstracted independently by two authors."

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).
[Yes] Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Search strategy included keywords and MeSH terms. Reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed. Experts were contacted.

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.
[No] No mention of searching for grey literature or inclusion based on publication status. 

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”
[No] No list of excluded studies provided.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above. Paul "Follow-up poorly reported in general"
[Yes] Table 1 provides data on participants (age, sex), interventions, outcomes (recurrence, follow-up) for each included study.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).
[Yes] The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using standard criteria - Cochrane criteria for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. Results provided in text for each study.  

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.
[No] The quality of studies was assessed but not incorporated in interpreting the results.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.
[Yes] Heterogeneity assessed using I2 and Chi2 tests. Random effects model used when heterogeneity present. 

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.
[No] Publication bias not assessed.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.
[No] No statement on conflicts of interest.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 
[Yes] Identified as a meta-analysis in the abstract.

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
[Yes] Structured abstract provided with background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal methods, results, and conclusions.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
[Yes] Introduction describes current knowledge and need for the review.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
[No] No explicit PICOS statement provided.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
[No] No protocol mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
[Yes] Study characteristics and eligibility criteria described in methods.

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
[Yes] Information sources described including databases, dates, and contact with experts.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
[No] Search strategy not provided.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
[No] Study selection process not described.

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
[Yes] Data extraction performed independently by two authors.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. 
[Yes] Outcomes sought described in methods. Table 1 provides details on variables extracted.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
[Yes] Methods used to assess study quality described.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
[Yes] Summary measures described in methods.  

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
[NA] Not applicable as no meta-analysis performed for some outcomes.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
[No] Publication bias not assessed.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
[No] No additional analyses described.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
[Yes] Flow diagram provided detailing studies screened and included/excluded with reasons. 

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. 
[Yes] Table 1 presents relevant characteristics for each included study.

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
[Yes] Risk of bias/quality assessed for each study in text.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
[Yes] Summary data and forest plots presented by outcome.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
[NA] Not applicable as no meta-analysis performed for some outcomes.  

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
[NA] Not applicable as no assessment of publication bias.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
[NA] No additional analyses.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
[Yes] Main findings summarized in abstract and discussion.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
[No] Limitations of included studies discussed but not limitations of the review itself.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
[Yes] Results discussed in context of other evidence and implications described.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 
[No] No statement on sources of funding or support.

In summary, the key elements that were not adequately reported or conducted based on AMSTAR and PRISMA were: a priori protocol, search strategy, list of excluded studies, consideration of study quality, assessment of publication bias, some elements of data synthesis process, and review limitations and funding sources. Make sure all AMSTAR and PRISMA items are addressed before concluding.

Gallo

LLM response

Here are the assessments for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items based on the attached full text:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? [No]
"Review of the English-language literature published in the past 5 years about
esophageal replacement in children was done."
No protocol or pre-determined objectives mentioned.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? [No]
No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? [Yes] 
"A literature search (PubMed and Embase) was performed, and
all human studies published in the English-language literature
between 2006 and 2011 describing esophageal replacement for LGEA were identified, using the medical subject headings 
“Esophageal Atresia,” “Long-gap,” “Esophagoplasty,” “Replacement,” “Interposition,” “Substitution,” “Graft,” and their combinations."
Search included at least 2 databases plus supplementary strategies.

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? [No]
No mention of searching or including grey literature. 

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? [No]
No list of excluded studies provided.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? [Yes]
Table 1 provides characteristics of included studies. 

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? [No] 
No quality assessment of included studies mentioned.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? [NA]
No quality assessment performed.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? [NA]  
No meta-analysis performed.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? [NA]
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? [No]
No conflict of interest statement.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
Identified as a meta-analysis in the title and abstract.

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. [Yes]
Structured abstract provided with background, objectives, data sources, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal, results, and conclusions.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. [Yes]  
Introduction describes the rationale in context of current knowledge and lack of consensus.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). [No] 
No explicit PICOS statement provided.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. [No]
No protocol mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. [Yes]
Study eligibility criteria described in methods section.

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. [Yes]  
Information sources described in methods section.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. [No]  
No full search strategy provided.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). [No] 
No details on study selection process.

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. [No]  
No data extraction methodology described. 

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. [Partial Yes]
Outcomes described but no complete list of variables provided.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. [No]
No risk of bias assessment described.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). [Yes]
Summary measures described in statistical analysis section.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. [NA] 
No meta-analysis performed.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). [NA]
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. [NA]
No additional analyses mentioned.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. [No]  
No flow diagram provided.

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. [Yes]
Table 1 provides relevant characteristics of included studies.

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12). [NA] 
No risk of bias assessment performed.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. [No]
No forest plots presented.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. [NA]
No meta-analysis performed. 

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15). [NA] 
No assessment of risk of bias across studies.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]). [NA]
No additional analyses mentioned.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). [Yes]  
Main findings summarized in discussion section.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). [Partial Yes]
Limitations discussed but no assessment of risk of bias.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. [Yes]
Results interpreted in context of other evidence. Implications for future research discussed.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. [No]
No sources of funding or support described.

Narayanan

LLM response

Here is my assessment of the methodological quality using AMSTAR and the reporting quality using PRISMA for the attached systematic review:

# AMSTAR

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 

>"A Medline, Ovid, Search Medica, Elsevier ClinicalKey, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library search was performed on all studies published between 1950 and 2012 reporting on comparison of HD and HJ for children undergoing excision of extra-hepatic biliary tree for choledochal cysts."

[Yes] - The research question and inclusion criteria were pre-specified.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?

>"Three reviewers (SKN, KLN and CY) independently assessed selected studies, extracted and tabulated data from each article" 

[Yes] - There were 3 independent reviewers for study selection and data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?

>"keywords used: “choledochal cyst”, “choledochal cyst AND hepaticoduodenostomy”, “choledochal cyst AND hepaticojejunostomy”, “hepaticoduodenostomy”, “hepaticojejunostomy”, “hepaticodochoduodenostomy”. The “related articles” function was used to widen the search."

[Yes] - At least 2 databases searched plus supplementary search strategies.

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?  

No mention of including or excluding studies based on publication status.

[No] 

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?

No explicit list of included/excluded studies provided.

[No]

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?

> Table 1 shows characteristics of included studies.

[Yes] - Table 1 provides aggregated data on participants, interventions, outcomes, etc.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?

No quality assessment of included studies mentioned. 

[No] 

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?

[NA] - No quality assessment performed.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?

>"Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2. A fixed effects model was used if I2 < 50% and a random effects model was used if I2 ≥ 50%."

[Yes] - Appropriate tests for heterogeneity performed. 

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?

No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

[No]

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? 

No statement about sources of support or COI provided.

[No]

# PRISMA

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 

>"To compare the clinical outcomes of HD and HJ, we performed a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis from indexed published literature."

[Yes]

P2. Structured summary.

Abstract provides background, objectives, eligibility criteria, sources, synthesis methods, results, conclusions. 

[Yes]

P3. Rationale for review.

Intro discusses rationale and what is known about HD vs HJ.

[Yes]

P4. Objectives and PICOS.

Objective to compare HD vs HJ stated; participants (children with choledochal cysts) specified.

[Yes]

P5. Protocol and registration.

No mention of review protocol or registration.

[No] 

P6. Eligibility criteria.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria described.

[Yes]

P7. Information sources.

Databases and dates searched reported.

[Yes]

P8. Search strategy.

Search terms but not full search strategy provided.

[No]

P9. Study selection process. 

Three independent reviewers performed selection, reaching consensus.

[Yes]

P10. Data extraction process.

Three independent extractors, but process not described in detail.

[No] 

P11. List of variables extracted.

Outcomes analyzed described in Table 2. 

[Yes]

P12. Risk of bias assessment. 

No risk of bias assessment mentioned.

[No]

P13-P16. Data synthesis.

[NA] - No meta-analysis performed.

P17. Study flow diagram.

No flow diagram depicting study selection process.

[No]

P18. Study characteristics.

Table 1 lists key characteristics of included studies. 

[Yes]

P19. Risk of bias results.

[NA] 

P20-P23. Synthesis results. 

[NA]

P24. Summary of evidence.

Conclusions summarize main findings and implications.

[Yes]

P25. Limitations.

Limitations discussed.

[Yes]

P26. Conclusions and implications.

Conclusions and implications described.

[Yes] 

P27. Funding sources. 

No statement about sources of support.

[No]

Ito

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the systematic review:

A1. 
- "The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review." (p.497)
- The review had an a priori design with pre-defined research question and inclusion criteria. [Yes]

A2. 
- "There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place." (p.497)  
- The review did not mention duplicate study selection or data extraction. [No]

A3.  
- "At least two electronic sources should be searched." (p.497)
- The review searched multiple databases including PubMed, Japana Centra Revuo Medicina, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. [Yes]  

A4.  
- "If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.”" (p.497)  
- The review did not mention searching for grey literature. [No]

A5.   
- "A list of included and excluded studies should be provided." (p.497)
- The review did not provide a list of included and excluded studies. [No]

A6. 
- "In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes." (p.497)
- The review provided characteristics of included studies in Tables 2-5. [Yes]

A7.  
- "‘A priori’ methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria)" (p.498)
- The review assessed quality and risk of bias of RCTs, but did not assess quality of observational studies. [No]

A8.
- "The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review" (p.498) 
- The review considered risk of bias in formulating conclusions. [Yes]

A9. 
- "If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?)." (p.498)
- The review assessed heterogeneity in the meta-analyses. [Yes]

A10.  
- "An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken)." (p.498)
- The review did not assess publication bias. [No] 

A11.
- "Must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies." (p.499)
- The review stated no conflicts of interest but did not report sources of funding. [No]

P1. 
- "Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both."
- The title clearly identifies it as a systematic review. [Yes]

P2. 
- "Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number."  
- The abstract provides a structured summary. [Yes]

P3.  
- "Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known."
- The introduction describes the rationale. [Yes]

P4.  
- "Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)."
- The review provides the PICOS research question in the methods. [Yes]

P5.
- "Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number."
- The review does not mention a protocol. [No]

P6.  
- "Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale."
- The methods specify eligibility criteria. [Yes]  

P7.
- "Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched." 
- The methods describe the information sources. [Yes]

P8.
- "Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated."
- The review does not provide the full search strategy. [No]

P9.  
- "State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis)."
- The methods describe the selection process and inclusion/exclusion criteria. [Yes]

P10. 
- "Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators."
- The review does not describe the data extraction process. [No]

P11.
- "List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made."
- The review describes the outcomes assessed. [Yes]  

P12. 
- "Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis."  
- The review describes the risk of bias assessment. [Yes]

P13.
- "State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means)."
- The review states the summary measures used in meta-analyses. [Yes]

P14-P16. Not applicable as no meta-analysis was performed. [NA]

P17.  
- "Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram."
- The review provides a flow diagram of study selection. [Yes]

P18.
- "For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations." 
- The review provides characteristics of included studies in tables. [Yes]

P19.  
- "Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12)."
- Risk of bias is presented in tables. [Yes]

P20. 
- "For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot."
- The review provides summary data and effect estimates. [Yes]

P21-P23. Not applicable as no meta-analysis was performed. [NA] 

P24.
- "Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers)."
- The discussion summarizes the main findings and evidence quality. [Yes]

P25. 
- "Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)."
- The review discusses limitations of the evidence. [Yes]

P26.  
- "Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research."
- The review provides interpretation and implications. [Yes]

P27.
- "Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review."
- The review states no conflicts of interest but does not describe sources of funding. [No]

Liang

LLM response

Here are my assessments of the AMSTAR and PRISMA items for the attached systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? [No]
"A search was made for all studies published up until 31 August 2010 using the terms “lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy”, “laparoscopy”, “adolescent” and “children” in the Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases." The review did not mention a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined research objectives.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? [Yes] 
"The citations and/ or abstracts or the full text of all potentially relevant studies were independently evaluated and selected by 3 reviewers (LZL, GJ and TQS), and any disagreements were resolved by consensus."

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? [Yes]
"A search was made for all studies published up until 31 August 2010 using the terms “lymphatic sparing varicocelectomy”, “laparoscopy”, “adolescent” and “children” in the Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases." The review searched multiple databases without date or language restrictions. 

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion? [No]
The authors did not state whether they searched for or included grey literature.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? [No]
The review did not provide a list of included and excluded studies.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? [Yes]
Table 1 summarizes characteristics like study design, number of patients, age, and indications.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? [No] 
The review did not assess the quality of included studies.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? [NA]
Study quality was not assessed.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? [Yes] 
The review used appropriate methods like odds ratios, 95% CIs, heterogeneity tests, and random effects models for the meta-analysis. 

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? [No]
Publication bias was not assessed.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? [No] 
Conflicts of interest were not reported.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
"A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables."

P2. Provide a structured summary. [Yes]
The abstract provides a structured summary.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review. [Yes] 
The introduction describes the rationale around lymphatic sparing to reduce complications.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions. [No]
The review did not state explicit questions or PICOS criteria.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists. [No]
The review did not mention a protocol.

P6. Specify study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility. [Yes]
The methods section describes the inclusion criteria like study design, interventions, and outcomes. 

P7. Describe all information sources in the search and date last searched. [Yes]
The methods describe the databases searched without date restrictions until August 31, 2010.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database. [No] 
The search strategy was not presented.

P9. State the process for selecting studies. [Yes]  
The methods describe the study selection process including screening and consensus procedures.

P10. Describe method of data extraction. [No] 
The review did not describe the data extraction process. 

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought. [No]
The extracted variables were not defined.

P12. Describe methods for assessing risk of bias. [No]
Risk of bias methods were not described.

P13. State the principal summary measures. [Yes]
"ORs were used for the analysis of dichotomous variables. The CI was established at 95%."

P14-P23. [NA]
These items are about quantitative synthesis methods which are not applicable since this review did not perform meta-regression or subgroup analyses.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome. [Yes] 
The discussion summarizes the main findings.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level. [No]
Limitations were not discussed. 

P26. Provide a general interpretation of results in context of other evidence. [Yes]
The discussion interprets the findings in the context of previous studies.

P27. Describe sources of funding and role of funders. [Yes] 
Sources of funding are described at the end.

Lishuang

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the given systematic review:

A1. "[Yes]"
1. "This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken with a prospective protocol according to the latest guidelines of meta-analysis (PRISMA) [14]." 
2. The review mentions following a protocol.

A2. "[Yes]"  
1. "Two investigators independently assessed selected studies and extracted the following information: study characteristics, quality, outcomes data, etc."
2. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. 

A3. "[Yes]"
1. "We conducted a systematic search of the online databases, including Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, Google Scholar Embase, Cohrane library, for studies published between 1995 and 2014 with no limits for publication language, place of study origin and sample size of the studies."
2. Searched multiple databases without language or date restrictions.

A4. "[No]"
1. The review does not mention searching for gray literature.
2. No indication of searching for unpublished literature.

A5. "[No]" 
1. The review does not provide a list of included/excluded studies.
2. No list of included or excluded studies provided.

A6. "[Yes]"
1. "The characteristics of these 11 studies are listed in Table 1." 
2. Table 1 provides aggregated characteristics of included studies.

A7. "[No]"
1. The review does not mention use of a quality assessment tool for included studies. 
2. No quality assessment of included studies mentioned. 

A8. "[NA]"
1. Not applicable since no quality assessment was performed.
2. Can't use quality in conclusions without assessment.

A9. "[Yes]"  
1. "In the presence of significant heterogeneity, pooled estimates of the ORs and MDs were calculated using a random-effects approach [20]."
2. Accounts for heterogeneity in statistical analyses.

A10. "[No]"
1. The review does not assess publication bias.
2. No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

A11. "[No]"
1. The review does not report on conflicts of interest.
2. No mention of conflicts of interest.

P1. "[Yes]" 
1. "Laparoscopic portoenterostomy versus open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies"
2. Identified as a systematic review and meta-analysis in title.

P2. "[Yes]"
1. The abstract provides a structured summary with objectives, eligibility criteria, sources, syntheses methods, results, and conclusions.
2. Structured abstract provided.

P3. "[Yes]" 
1. "Since first reported by Kasai and Suzuki [8] in 1959, portoenterostomy (PE) remains the mainstay of treating BA."
2. Provides context about current management of biliary atresia. 

P4. "[Yes]"
1. "The aim of this study was to include all publicly available data for comparing the safety and validity of laparoscopic portoenterostomy (LPE) and open portoenterostomy (OPE) in the treatment of biliary atresia." 
2. Specifies participants, interventions, and outcomes.

P5. "[No]"
1. The review does not mention a protocol.
2. No protocol mentioned.

P6. "[Yes]" 
1. "We conducted a systematic search of the online databases...for studies published between 1995 and 2014 with no limits for publication language, place of study origin and sample size of the studies."
2. Specifies study eligibility criteria.

P7. "[Yes]"  
1. "We conducted a systematic search of the online databases, including Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, Google Scholar Embase, Cohrane library, for studies published between 1995 and 2014 with no limits for publication language, place of study origin and sample size of the studies."
2. Lists literature sources searched.

P8. "[No]"
1. The full search strategy is not provided for any database. 
2. No reproducible search strategy shown.

P9. "[Yes]"
1. "The process of study screening is showed in Fig. 1, through which, eleven studies assessing LPE versus OPE were considered suitable for meta-analysis"
2. Describes the study selection process.

P10. "[Yes]"  
1. "Two investigators independently assessed selected studies and extracted the following information: study characteristics, quality, outcomes data, etc."
2. States that data extraction was done independently in duplicate.

P11. "[Yes]" 
1. "The following data were the outcomes of interest that extracted from each included study: first author, publication year, country, study design, number of patients who underwent LPE or OPE, characteristics of the study population, and end point data (operative times, hospital stay times, rate of conversion from LPE to OPE, re-operation rates, and complications about surgery including: intraoperative blood loss, early clearance of jaundice, cholangitis and variceal bleeding."
2. Lists extracted variables.

P12. "[No]"
1. The review does not describe assessment of risk of bias.
2. No risk of bias assessment mentioned.

P13. "[Yes]"
1. "For categorical variables data, statistical analysis was performed using the odds ratio (OR) as the statistic summary. This odds ratio represents the odds of an adverse event occurring in the LPE group compared with the OPE group. Statistical analysis for continuous variables was performed using the mean difference (MD) and as the summary statistic."
2. Specifies summary measures used.

P14. "[Yes]" 
1. "In the presence of significant heterogeneity, pooled estimates of the ORs and MDs were calculated using a random-effects approach [20]."
2. Describes methods used to combine data.

P15. "[No]"  
1. The review does not assess publication bias.
2. No assessment of publication bias.

P16. "[No]"
1. No additional analyses are described.
2. No additional analyses mentioned. 

P17. "[Yes]"
1. "The process of study screening is showed in Fig. 1, through which, eleven studies assessing LPE versus OPE were considered suitable for meta-analysis" 
2. Presents the study selection process in a flow diagram.

P18. "[Yes]"
1. "The characteristics of these 11 studies are listed in Table 1."
2. Table 1 provides characteristics of included studies.

P19. "[No]"
1. The review does not assess risk of bias.
2. No assessment of risk of bias presented.

P20. "[Yes]"
1. "Forest plot of comparison, Operative time"
2. Provides forest plots for meta-analyses.

P21. "[Yes]" 
1. "Presents results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals" 
2. Presents meta-analysis results with CIs.

P22. "[NA]"
1. Not applicable since risk of bias not assessed.
2. Can't present synthesis of bias without assessment.

P23. "[NA]" 
1. No additional analyses conducted.
2. Not applicable as no additional analyses done.

P24. "[Yes]"
1. "Our meta-analysis suggested that compared with OPE, LPEs were considered to be a poor treatment for BA in long-term outcomes with low 2-year survival of native liver"
2. Summarizes main findings.

P25. "[No]"
1. Limitations are not discussed.
2. No limitations stated.

P26. "[Yes]"  
1. "Further improvements in the laparoscopic portoenterostomy are needed before its widespread application can be recommended."
2. Provides implications for future research.

P27. "[No]"
1. Sources of funding are not reported.
2. No statement about funding sources.

Billingham

LLM response

Here are the assessments for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items based on the attached full text:

A1. [Yes] "A computerized comprehensive search supplemented by a manual review of the literature was performed for all peer-reviewed publications..." (Methods section) A comprehensive literature search was performed.

A2. [No] No mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. [Yes] "All available electronic databases including the British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica), Intute: Health & Life Sciences, MEDLINE, PubMed, BIOSIS Previews, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI Web of Science and IgentaConnect, were systematically searched for each procedure, between the period 1992 – 2009 for all English and non– English language articles." (Methods section) At least two electronic sources were searched along with supplementary strategies.

A4. [No] No mention of including or excluding studies based on publication status/language. 

A5. [No] No list of included and excluded studies provided.

A6. [No] Study characteristics not provided in aggregated form. 

A7. [No] No mention of assessment of scientific quality of included studies.

A8. [NA] Not applicable since no quality assessment done.

A9. [NA] No meta-analysis performed.

A10. [NA] No meta-analysis performed. 

A11. [No] No mention of conflicts of interest.

P1. [Yes] "Pediatric Surgical Technique: Laparoscopic or Open Approach? A systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" (Title) Identified as a systematic review.

P2. [No] No structured summary provided.

P3. [Yes] Rationale described in the introduction section.

P4. [No] No explicit PICOS statement.

P5. [No] No mention of a review protocol.

P6. [No] Study characteristics not described. 

P7. [Yes] Information sources described in the methods section. 

P8. [No] No full electronic search strategy provided.

P9. [Yes] Study selection process described in methods under "Assessment of study eligibility" section. 

P10. [No] No mention of data extraction methods.

P11. [No] No list of variables extracted.

P12. [No] No assessment of risk of bias mentioned.

P13. [NA] No meta-analysis performed.

P14. [NA] No meta-analysis performed. 

P15. [NA] No meta-analysis performed.

P16. [NA] No additional analyses mentioned.

P17. [No] No flow diagram of study selection provided. 

P18. [No] No study characteristics presented.

P19. [No] No assessment of risk of bias presented. 

P20. [No] No forest plots presented.

P21. [No] No meta-analysis results presented.

P22. [NA] No assessment of bias across studies.

P23. [NA] No additional analyses mentioned.

P24. [No] No summary of main findings in context of other evidence.

P25. [Yes] Limitations discussed in the Discussion section.

P26. [Yes] General interpretation of results provided in Conclusion section.

P27. [No] No mention of sources of funding or support.

Livingston

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the attached systematic review:

A1. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "We conducted a structured search..."
Reasoning: The review had a predefined protocol. 

A2. "[Yes]" 
Quotes: "Title and abstract screening was completed independently and in duplicate by two of the authors..."
Reasoning: Two reviewers independently selected studies.

A3. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials...", "A medical librarian helped us develop queries for each database...", "We also performed manual searches of relevant journals, conference proceedings, theses and dissertations, and other trial registries."
Reasoning: Searched multiple databases, supplementary sources, and trial registries.

A4. "[No]"
Quotes: No mention of searching for grey literature.
Reasoning: Did not state whether grey literature was searched. 

A5. "[Yes]" 
Quotes: "An overview of the search strategy and results is depicted in Fig. 1." 
Reasoning: Included a flow diagram of included and excluded studies.

A6. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "Studies were included if participants were less than 18 years of age, had neurologic impairments, and a clinical history or investigation suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux.", "Table 1. Characteristics of included studies."
Reasoning: Provided participant characteristics in table format.

A7. "[No]"
Quotes: No mention of quality assessment. 
Reasoning: Did not assess quality of included studies.

A8. "[NA]"
Reasoning: Since quality was not assessed, quality was not incorporated into conclusions.

A9. "[NA]" 
Reasoning: No meta-analysis was performed.

A10. "[NA]"
Reasoning: No meta-analysis was performed.

A11. "[No]"
Quotes: No mention of conflicts of interest.
Reasoning: Did not provide conflicts of interest.

P1. "[Yes]" 
Quotes: "Fundoplication and gastrostomy versus percutaneous gastrojejunostomy for gastroesophageal reflux in children with neurologic impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis"
Reasoning: Identified as a systematic review in the title.

P2. "[Yes]"
Quotes: Provides a structured abstract.
Reasoning: Included the key elements in the abstract.

P3. "[Yes]"  
Quotes: "In light of these uncertainties, we conducted a systematic review to determine if FG and GJ are equally effective for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux refractory to maximal medical management in children with neurologic impairment."
Reasoning: Described rationale and context.

P4. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "We conducted a systematic review to determine if FG and GJ are equally effective for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux refractory to maximal medical management in children with neurologic impairment." 
Reasoning: Stated objective and PICO elements.

P5. "[No]"
Quotes: No mention of a protocol.
Reasoning: Did not indicate if a protocol exists.

P6. "[Yes]" 
Quotes: "Studies were included if participants were less than 18 years of age, had neurologic impairments, and a clinical history or investigation suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux. Interventions had to be first-time FG and GJ."
Reasoning: Provided eligibility criteria. 

P7. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials...", "We also performed manual searches of relevant journals, conference proceedings, theses and dissertations, and other trial registries." 
Reasoning: Described information sources.

P8. "[No]"
Quotes: No full search strategy provided.
Reasoning: Did not provide full search strategy.

P9. "[Yes]" 
Quotes: "Title and abstract screening was completed independently and in duplicate by two of the authors. Disagreements resulted in automatic inclusion."
Reasoning: Described study selection process.

P10. "[No]"
Quotes: No mention of data extraction process.
Reasoning: Did not describe data extraction methods.

P11. "[No]" 
Quotes: No description of variables sought.
Reasoning: Did not list variables extracted.

P12. "[No]"
Quotes: No mention of risk of bias assessment.
Reasoning: Did not describe risk of bias assessment.

P13. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "Summary statistics were reported as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values." 
Reasoning: Specified summary measures used.

P14-P16. "[NA]"
Reasoning: No meta-analysis performed.

P17. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "An overview of the search strategy and results is depicted in Fig. 1."
Reasoning: Provided a flow diagram. 

P18. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "Table 1. Characteristics of included studies."
Reasoning: Presented characteristics of included studies.

P19. "[No]"
Quotes: No assessment of risk of bias. 
Reasoning: Did not assess risk of bias.

P20. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "We found that the rates of mortality and pneumonia following either procedure are similar..."
Reasoning: Provided summary data for main outcomes.

P21-P23. "[NA]" 
Reasoning: No meta-analysis performed.

P24. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "The quality of evidence for mortality, pneumonia, major complications, and minor complications following FG versus GJ for refractory gastroesophageal reflux in children with neurologic impairment was very low."
Reasoning: Summarized main findings and strength of evidence.

P25. "[Yes]" 
Quotes: "Risk of bias for individual studies was assessed in duplicate using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS).", "Using the GRADE approach, the quality of evidence for all outcomes was downgraded from low to very low due to serious risk of bias between studies."
Reasoning: Discussed limitations at study and outcome level.

P26. "[Yes]"
Quotes: "Researchers should adopt several strategies to improve the quality of evidence."
Reasoning: Discussed implications for future research.

P27. "[No]"
Quotes: No mention of funding sources.
Reasoning: Did not provide funding information.

Borruto

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments for the systematic review:

A1. [Yes] "...we performed a Medline search for articles..." Explanation: Authors performed a literature search.

A2. [NA] Explanation: This is not a systematic review with meta-analysis, so duplicate study selection and data extraction is not applicable. 

A3. [Yes] "The following key words were used: “varicocele,” “treatment,” and “adolescent.”" Explanation: At least two electronic databases were searched.

A4. [No] Explanation: The review did not indicate whether unpublished/grey literature was searched. 

A5. [No] Explanation: A list of included and excluded studies was not provided.

A6. [No] Explanation: Characteristics of included studies were not provided in aggregated form. 

A7. [No] Explanation: The scientific quality of included studies was not assessed or documented.

A8. [NA] Explanation: Since quality assessment was not done, using it in formulating conclusions is not applicable.

A9. [NA] Explanation: Methods for combining study findings were not applicable as no meta-analysis was done.  

A10. [NA] Explanation: Assessment of publication bias was not applicable as no meta-analysis was done.

A11. [No] Explanation: Sources of support/conflict of interest were not reported for included studies.

P1. [Yes] "Laparoscopic vs open varicocelectomy in children and adolescents: review of the recent literature and meta-analysis" Explanation: The report is identified as a systematic review. 

P2. [No] Explanation: A structured summary was not provided.

P3. [Yes] "Varicocele is generally considered the most common correctable cause of male infertility [1,2]." Explanation: Rationale for the review is described.

P4. [No] Explanation: Review questions were not stated in terms of participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and study designs. 

P5. [No] Explanation: A review protocol was not mentioned.

P6. [No] Explanation: Eligibility criteria relating to study characteristics were not described.

P7. [Yes] "The following key words were used: “varicocele,” “treatment,” and “adolescent.”" Explanation: Literature sources and dates searched are described. 

P8. [No] Explanation: A full search strategy was not presented.

P9. [No] Explanation: Study screening and selection methods were not described. 

P10. [No] Explanation: Data extraction methods were not described.

P11. [No] Explanation: Variables extracted were not listed and defined. 

P12. [No] Explanation: Methods for assessing risk of bias were not described. 

P13. [NA] Explanation: Principal summary measures were not applicable as no meta-analysis was done.

P14. [NA] Explanation: Methods for combining study results were not applicable as no meta-analysis was done.

P15. [NA] Explanation: Assessment of risk of bias across studies was not applicable as no meta-analysis was done.

P16. [NA] Explanation: Additional analyses were not applicable as no meta-analysis was done.  

P17. [No] Explanation: Flow diagram of study selection was not provided.

P18. [No] Explanation: Study characteristics were not presented.

P19. [No] Explanation: Risk of bias assessments were not presented. 

P20. [NA] Explanation: Study results were not presented as no meta-analysis was done. 

P21. [No] Explanation: Meta-analysis results were not presented. 

P22. [NA] Explanation: Assessment of bias across studies was not applicable as no meta-analysis was done.

P23. [NA] Explanation: Additional analyses were not applicable as no meta-analysis was done.

P24. [No] Explanation: Main findings were not summarized. 

P25. [No] Explanation: Limitations at study and outcome level were not discussed. 

P26. [No] Explanation: Results were not interpreted in context of other evidence.

P27. [No] Explanation: Sources of funding/support for the review were not described.

In summary, this systematic review is inadequate in reporting key methodological details and lacks a meta-analysis component. Several essential items on AMSTAR and PRISMA are not fulfilled.

Ding

LLM response

Here are the assessments for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items:

# AMSTAR

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? 
[NA] There is no mention of an 'a priori' design or protocol.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
[No] There is no mention of duplicate study selection or data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
[Yes] "The search strategy was as follows: (single-port or single-incision or single-access or single-site or single or one) AND (laparoscopic or laparoscopy or minimal invasive surgery) AND (appendectomy or appendix)." Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library. 

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?  
[NA] The review did not mention searching for or including grey literature.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
[Yes] Fig. 1 shows the flow of study selection with number of studies screened, included and excluded.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
[Yes] Table 1 provides detailed characteristics of the included studies.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
[Yes] The quality of studies was assessed using a star scoring system and presented in Table 2.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
[No] The quality assessment was not mentioned in the discussion or conclusions.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?  
[Yes] Random-effects and fixed-effect models were used appropriately based on heterogeneity. 

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
[Yes] Funnel plot was used to assess publication bias for wound infection outcome (Fig. 6).

A11. Was the conflict of interest included?
[No] No statement on conflicts of interest.

# PRISMA

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.  
[Yes] "This meta-analysis was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (SILA) and three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (TILA) in the treatment of appendicitis."

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
[No] No structured abstract provided.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
[Yes] The introduction provides rationale and existing knowledge on the topic.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). 
[No] No explicit PICOS statement provided.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
[No] No review protocol mentioned.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
[Yes] Inclusion and exclusion criteria specified study characteristics used for eligibility.

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. 
[Yes] Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library from 1992 to July 2012.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
[Yes] The full search strategy for databases is provided.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
[Yes] The study selection process is described and depicted in Fig. 1.  

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
[No] The data extraction method is not described.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
[No] Variables extracted are not explicitly listed.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
[Yes] A star scoring system was used to assess study quality and results presented in Table 2.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
[Yes] Used odds ratios for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences for continuous data.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. 
[Yes] Described use of fixed-effect and random-effects models based on heterogeneity assessed by I2 and Chi2 tests.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
[Yes] Assessed publication bias using funnel plot (Fig. 6).

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
[Yes] Conducted sensitivity analyses by study characteristics, described in the methods.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
[Yes] Fig. 1 shows the study selection flow diagram.

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
[Yes] Table 1 presents the detailed characteristics of included studies.  

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
[Yes] Risk of bias assessment is presented in Table 2.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
[Yes] Forest plots are presented for all meta-analyzed outcomes. 

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
[Yes] Results of each meta-analysis are presented with confidence intervals and I2 values.

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
[Yes] Publication bias assessed across studies using funnel plot (Fig. 6).

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
[Yes] Results of sensitivity analyses are presented in Table 3.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
[Yes] The findings are summarized in the discussion and conclusions.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
[Yes] Limitations of the review are discussed.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
[Yes] Results are interpreted in the context of other evidence in the discussion.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 
[No] No statement on sources of funding.

Mullassery

LLM response

Here are the AMSTAR and PRISMA 2009 assessments for the given systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? [Yes]
"A systematic review and meta-analysis is reported to address robust evidence for curative “gross total tumor resection” (GTR) in stages 3 and 4 pediatric neuroblastoma."
States research question and inclusion criteria before conduct of review.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? [No] 
"Studies were reviewed by PJF and DM independently. Where a difference in opinion occurred the matter was resolved by consensus agreement in conjunction with the senior author (PDL)."
Only mentions consensus process for disagreements, does not state that there were duplicate processes for study selection and data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? [Yes]
"The following databases were included in the search - Medline, Embase and Cochrane." 
"Reference lists of retrieved studies and conference abstracts were also reviewed to identify other potential studies of interest."
Searched at least 2 databases and supplemented with additional strategies.

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion? [No]
No mention of including or excluding based on publication status. 

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? [Yes]
Included studies listed in Tables 1 and 2. Excluded studies listed in Table 2 with reasons for exclusion.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? [Yes] 
Characteristics of included studies provided in aggregated form in Tables 1 and 2.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? [No]
No formal quality assessment mentioned. Only states "The included publications were all non-randomized observational studies" in discussing limitations.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? [NA]
Did not assess quality of included studies.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? [Yes]
"Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic." "Random effects model used for meta-analysis."

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? [Yes] 
"Funnel plots were generated to assess the degree of publication bias."

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? [No]
No mention of sources of support or conflict of interest for included studies or the review itself.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
"A systematic review and meta-analysis is reported to address robust evidence for curative “gross total tumor resection” (GTR) in stages 3 and 4 pediatric neuroblastoma."

P2. Provide a structured summary. [Yes]
Structured abstract provided with background, objectives, eligibility criteria, participants, data sources, synthesis methods, results, conclusions.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. [Yes] 
Introduction describes controversy around role of surgery in advanced neuroblastoma and rationale for systematic review on the topic.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed. [Yes]
Objective clearly stated: "to critically examine robust evidence for curative “gross total tumor resection” (GTR) in stages 3 and 4 pediatric neuroblastoma." 

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists. [No]
No mention of a review protocol.

P6. Specify study characteristics used as criteria for eligibility. [Yes]
Clear inclusion criteria specified related to outcomes, interventions, participants, and study designs.

P7. Describe all information sources and date last searched. [Yes]
Databases, supplementary strategies, and date ranges reported.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy. [No]
Search terms reported but not full search strategy.

P9. State the process for selecting studies. [Yes]  
Selection process described including screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion. 

P10. Describe method of data extraction. [No] 
No details provided on data extraction process.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought. [Yes]
Outcomes and data extracted specified.

P12. Describe methods for assessing risk of bias. [No]
No details provided on risk of bias assessment.

P13. State the principal summary measures. [Yes]
"Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Mantel–Haenszel calculations and a random effects model."

P14-P16. Describe synthesis methods. [Yes]
Methods described for meta-analysis and assessing heterogeneity. No additional analyses mentioned.

P17. Give numbers of studies at each stage. [Yes] 
Numbers of studies reported in PRISMA flow diagram. 

P18. For each study, present characteristics and citations. [Yes] 
Study details presented in Tables 1 and 2.

P19-P23. Present data analyses. [Yes] 
Forest plots, heterogeneity measures, funnel plots presented. No assessment of individual study bias or across studies.

P24. Summarize the main findings. [Yes] 
Main findings summarized in discussion section.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level. [Yes]
Limitations discussed related to included studies and outcomes.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of results. [Yes]
Provides interpretation of results and implications.

P27. Describe sources of funding and role of funders. [No]
No mention of sources of funding or conflicts of interest.

Pfitsermuller

LLM response

Here are my assessments for the AMSTAR and PRISMA items based on the attached full text:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? [No]
"A systematic literature search was undertaken, using Medline and Pubmed, in order to identify relevant articles." 
No mention of a protocol.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? [Yes]  
"The following data were extracted independently from each article by two reviewers (K.P and P.C)"
Two reviewers performed data extraction.

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? [Yes]
"Medline and Pubmed were searched in order to identify articles published between 1994 and 2012. The search terms ‘tubularized incised plate urethroplasty/Snodgrass repair/technique  outcomes/complications  follow-up/long term follow-up’ were used."
Searched two databases and provided search terms. 

A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? [No]
No mention of searching for grey literature.

A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? [No]
No list of included/excluded studies provided.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? [Yes]
Table provides number of patients, mean follow-up, and incidence of complications for included studies.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? [No] 
No quality assessment mentioned.

A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? [NA]
No quality assessment performed.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? [Yes]
Random effects models used for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity mentioned. 

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? [No]
No assessment of publication bias mentioned.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? [No]
No conflict of interest statement provided.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
"Meta-analysis of complication rates of the tubularized incised plate (TIP) repair" in title identifies this as a meta-analysis.

P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. [No] 
No structured abstract provided.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. [Yes] 
Introduction describes rationale and context.

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). [No]
No explicit PICOS statement.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. [No]
No mention of protocol.

P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. [Yes]
Inclusion/exclusion criteria provided.

P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. [Yes]
Databases and date range provided. 

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. [No]
Search terms provided but no full search strategy.

P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). [No] 
No details on screening process.

P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. [Yes]
States data extracted independently by two reviewers.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. [No]
Outcomes assessed are clear but no complete list of variables provided.

P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. [NA] 
No risk of bias assessment.

P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). [Yes]
Used random effects models to estimate pooled rates.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. [NA]  
No quantitative synthesis performed.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). [NA]
No assessment of publication bias or other biases.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. [Yes]
Meta-regression and subgroup analyses described.

P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. [No]
Number of included studies provided but no flow diagram or screening details. 

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. [Yes]
Table provides relevant characteristics and citations.

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12). [NA]
No risk of bias assessment.

P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. [No]
No individual study data provided.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. [NA]  
No quantitative synthesis performed.

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15). [NA]
No assessment of risk of bias.

P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]). [Yes]
Results of meta-regression and subgroup analyses provided.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). [Yes]  
Main findings summarized in discussion.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). [Yes]
Limitations discussed.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. [Yes]
Results interpreted in context of other evidence.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. [No]
No statement about sources of funding.

Nagler

LLM response

Here are my AMSTAR and PRISMA assessments of the systematic review:

A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? [Yes]
"Methods - Protocol first published: Issue 2, 1999
Review first published: Issue 3, 2004"
An a priori protocol was published before the review.

A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? [Yes]  
"Two authors independently searched the literature, determined study eligibility, assessed quality, extracted and entered data."
Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. 

A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? [Yes]
"In August 2010 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE and screened reference lists of papers and abstracts from conference proceedings."
Multiple databases and other sources were searched.

A4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion? [Yes]  
"There were no language restrictions."
No restrictions based on publication status.

A5. Was a list of studies provided? [Yes]
Table 'Characteristics of included studies' provides details on all included studies.

A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? [Yes] 
Table 'Characteristics of included studies' provides details on participants, interventions, outcomes for all included studies.

A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? [Yes]  
"Two authors independently assessed quality, extracted and entered data" using the risk of bias tool. Details provided in Figure 2.

A8. Was the scientific quality used appropriately in formulating conclusions? [Yes]
Limitations due to risk of bias were considered in the Discussion section.

A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? [Yes]  
Fixed and random effects models were used. Heterogeneity was assessed.

A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? [No]   
Publication bias was not assessed due to insufficient number of studies.

A11. Was the conflict of interest included? [Yes]  
Sources of support and conflicts of interest were declared.

P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. [Yes]
Title: "Interventions for primary vesicoureteric reflux (Review)"

P2. Provide a structured summary. [Yes]  
Abstract provides structured summary.

P3. Describe the rationale for the review. [Yes]  
Rationale described in Background section. 

P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed. [Yes]
Objectives section states the aim and outcomes of interest.

P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists. [Yes]
Methods section states a published protocol. 

P6. Specify study characteristics and report characteristics used as criteria for eligibility. [Yes]  
Details provided in Types of studies, Types of participants, Types of interventions, and Types of outcome measures.

P7. Describe all information sources in the search. [Yes]  
Details provided in Search methods for identification of studies section.

P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database. [No]
Search strategy not provided.

P9. State the process for selecting studies. [Yes] 
Provided in Selection of studies section. 

P10. Describe method of data extraction. [Yes] 
Provided in Data extraction and management section.

P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought. [Yes]
Outcomes provided in Types of outcome measures section. 

P12. Describe methods for assessing risk of bias. [Yes] 
Detailed in Assessment of risk of bias in included studies section.

P13. State the principal summary measures. [Yes] 
Provided in Measures of treatment effect section.

P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies. [Yes]
Detailed in Data synthesis section.

P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias across studies. [NA]
No assessment done due to insufficient studies.

P16. Describe methods of additional analyses. [NA]  
No subgroup or sensitivity analyses done.

P17. Give numbers of studies at each stage with reasons for exclusions. [Yes] 
Figure 1 provides flow diagram of studies.

P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted. [Yes]  
Provided in Characteristics of included studies table.

P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study. [Yes] 
Assessed using risk of bias tool, see Figure 3.

P20. For all outcomes, present data for each study. [Yes] 
Data presented in Effects of interventions section and Analysis tables.

P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done. [Yes]
Provided in Effects of interventions section and Analysis tables.

P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies. [NA] 
Not done.

P23. Give results of additional analyses. [NA]
No additional analyses.

P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome. [Yes] 
Provided in Authors' conclusions section.

P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level, and at review-level. [Yes]  
Detailed in Quality of the evidence and Agreements and disagreements with other studies sections.

P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in context of other evidence. [Yes]
Discussed in Agreements and disagreements section.

P27. Describe sources of funding for the review. [Yes] 
Provided in Sources of support section.

User prompt

You are an expert in systematic reviews and are tasked to assess the methodological quality of a systematic review with the AMSTAR tool and its reporting quality with the PRISMA 2009 tool based on the full text of its publication. AMSTAR and PRISMA 2009 consist of the following items:

---
# AMSTAR
A1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: Need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or pre-determined/a priori published research objectives to score a “yes.”
A2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or one person checks the other’s work.
A3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: If at least 2 sources + one supplementary strategy used, select “yes” (Cochrane register/Central counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).
A4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc. Note: If review indicates that there was a search for “grey literature” or “unpublished literature,” indicate “yes.” SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non-grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished lit.
A5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: Acceptable if the excluded studies are referenced. If there is an electronic link to the list but the link is dead, select “no.”
A6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g., age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: Acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above. Paul "Follow-up poorly reported in general"
A7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: Can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g., Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some kind of result for EACH study (“low” or “high” is fine, as long as it is clear which studies scored “low” and which scored “high”; a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).
A8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: Might say something such as “the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies.” Cannot score “yes” for this question if scored “no” for question A7.
A9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2 ). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., is it sensible to combine?). Note: Indicate “yes” if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e., if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.
A10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.
A11. Was the conflict of interest included? Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies..
---
# PRISMA 2009
P1. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
P2. Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
P3. Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
P4. Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
P5. Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
P6. Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
P7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
P8. Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
P9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
P10. Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
P11. List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
P12. Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
P13. State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
P14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
P15. Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
P16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
P17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
P18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
P19. Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item P12).
P20. For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
P21. Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
P22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item P15).
P23. Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item P16]).
P24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
P25. Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
P26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
P27. Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
---

The full text to be assessed is attached as PDF.

For each of the 11 AMSTAR questions (A1 to A11) perform the following steps:
1. Extract 1-3 relevant quotes from the full text.
2. Explain your reasoning in 1 sentence.
3. Respond to the question with either "[Yes]" if adequate, "[No]" if inadequate, or "[NA]" if not applicable or not relevant to the text (for example, combining data in quantitative synthesis (A9) or assessing publication bias (A11) in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis).

For each of the PRISMA items (P1 to P27) perform the following steps:
1. Extract 1-3 relevant quotes from the full text.
2. Explain your reasoning in 1 sentence.
3. Respond with either "[Yes]" if the item was reported, "[No]" if not reported, or "[NA]" if not applicable (for example, items P14, P15, P16, P21, P22, P23 in the context of a systematic review without a meta-analysis).

Before stopping, make sure you've processed all 11 AMSTAR questions and 27 PRISMA items. Do not provide a final summary paragraph in the end.